- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,222
- 52,658
- 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.
Were you on this bus?Geology is an interesting thing to study.
I remember well my first experience, going on describing how a drive with a
geologist who was reading the landscape as we went, identifying
the features, describing how they formed.
It made everything come so alive.
It's a pity when people have no idea what they are looking at.
No it wouldn't.If a star is a million light years away and it was 'created' 6,000 years ago, then the light that was also 'created' 6,000 years ago as almost having reached earth will show...what? It would have to show us what the star was like one million years ago.
If you use it to make shadow puppets in the appearance of an intruder in that distant room, then yes.No it wouldn't.
Suppose that's not the way it happened?
Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?
Am I being deceptive?
The universe would not need to be static in a YEC model. I do not recall any YEC demand to that effect. Just to say. YEC'ers are also allowed to thinkThe irony is a 6000 year old static universe where the photons are created in transit along with everything else behaves in the same way as an infinitely old static universe as in both cases photons have reached the observer irrespective of the distance of the source resulting in the paradox.
The universe would not need to be static in a YEC model. I do not recall any YEC demand to that effect. Just to say. YEC'ers are also allowed to think
Right, thank you, I would want to know if you were qualified in geology specifically, or related.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?
I judge people's arguments on the thinking demonstrated in their posts .. not their past academic qualifications. Its back to first principles for me, whenever ideas are presented.
Just a thought here. Every science borrows from other sicences. Not everything is studied down to the minute detail before the prospect can get his graduation. Actually, sometimes having the paper implies more authority (at least knowledge-based authority) than what you really have.I guess people in all professions sometimes "fake it".It's not for the un-initiated. That is, it's not for us to declare opinions on the matter without expert help. And when I mean expert, I mean people who are qualified in the relevant subject. For example I wouldn't rely on my doctor to give me expert opinion on my house electrical system. And one wouldn't rely on someone who was expert in Metallurgical Engineering to give you info on geology.
Except that you do. Which is not wrong. But his opinion carries about as much weight as mine. And I would suggest that his opinion might well have less weight than that of someone like @Astrophile, who appears to know more about the subject than all of us combined.
The point being is that you do yourself no favours whatsoever by using biased and non-qualified self-admitted YECs to back up any point you'd like to make about YEC. In fact, it detracts monstrously from any valid point you may have (and I have to say I haven't seen many so far).
Do you understand what I'm saying?
And by the way, I'm qualified in mechanical engineering and something of an expert in 3D CAD modelling. If someone starts a thread on that then I'm your go-to guy.
My suggestion would be to start a new thread.Right, thank you, I would want to know if you were qualified in geology specifically, or related.
OK anyway, as stated I am qualified in molecular biology. In my field, evolution (with a broad stroke) is being marketed almost as holy science. I was doing a whole semester project with 2 other guys on detection of evolution in different bacterial strains. As per my interpretation the results were negative, but another guy in the group found some evidence to continue his belief in evolution. At that point I was not really a YEC, that came only 4-5 years later.
I believe in mutations (mutations exist), but evolution as a major concept that should have governed the development of life on earth, no, impossible. And the arguments that I would present, even an academic with no special training in molecular biology, would be able to understand. There would of course also be arguments for an evolution-positive view. Also possible to understand for an academic person.
But when evolution is touted as "fact", wow, we should be very careful what we are talking about. And most people would not know, and would be overwhelmed by the "I am an expert" argument.
My statement ends here.
For your interest, being well trained in mathematics, the idea of positive mutations in evolution, is a bit like a word game. Example, can you by "mutations" get from "like" to "hate"? Substitutions, deletions and insertions are allowed, but they must make sense all the way, or it will be a lethal mutation.
Let me start: "Like" -> "Lake" -> "Late" -> "Hate".
OK that worked. So you may be able to account for how Like turns to Hate. Can you do the same thing with Love and Hate?
Regarding evolution, this is how it would have to be in order for evolution to create new functions from old functions. The DNA code and the corresponding protein code would have to change in a meaningful way all the way from an existing function to a new function. I have never seen such a thing demonstrated or even theorized. Yet the idea of positive mutations is touted, and well so, for "positive mutations" is a cardinal doctrine of evolution. It will not work without that doctrine.
I hope we can just play that word game and not go too deeply into evolution. Other than I will say, when geologists hang their ideas of the age of different layers of rock on "index fossils", I can not follow their ideas there. That may be my personal preference, and for the purpose of keeping the thread on track, let us not go too deeply into that topic either.
No it wouldn't.
Suppose that's not the way it happened?
Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?
Am I being deceptive?
You are mistaken about both the behavior of mutations and the use of index fossils.Right, thank you, I would want to know if you were qualified in geology specifically, or related.
OK anyway, as stated I am qualified in molecular biology. In my field, evolution (with a broad stroke) is being marketed almost as holy science. I was doing a whole semester project with 2 other guys on detection of evolution in different bacterial strains. As per my interpretation the results were negative, but another guy in the group found some evidence to continue his belief in evolution. At that point I was not really a YEC, that came only 4-5 years later.
I believe in mutations (mutations exist), but evolution as a major concept that should have governed the development of life on earth, no, impossible. And the arguments that I would present, even an academic with no special training in molecular biology, would be able to understand. There would of course also be arguments for an evolution-positive view. Also possible to understand for an academic person.
But when evolution is touted as "fact", wow, we should be very careful what we are talking about. And most people would not know, and would be overwhelmed by the "I am an expert" argument.
My statement ends here.
For your interest, being well trained in mathematics, the idea of positive mutations in evolution, is a bit like a word game. Example, can you by "mutations" get from "like" to "hate"? Substitutions, deletions and insertions are allowed, but they must make sense all the way, or it will be a lethal mutation.
Let me start: "Like" -> "Lake" -> "Late" -> "Hate".
OK that worked. So you may be able to account for how Like turns to Hate. Can you do the same thing with Love and Hate?
Regarding evolution, this is how it would have to be in order for evolution to create new functions from old functions. The DNA code and the corresponding protein code would have to change in a meaningful way all the way from an existing function to a new function. I have never seen such a thing demonstrated or even theorized. Yet the idea of positive mutations is touted, and well so, for "positive mutations" is a cardinal doctrine of evolution. It will not work without that doctrine.
I hope we can just play that word game and not go too deeply into evolution. Other than I will say, when geologists hang their ideas of the age of different layers of rock on "index fossils", I can not follow their ideas there. That may be my personal preference, and for the purpose of keeping the thread on track, let us not go too deeply into that topic either.
Despite the fact that, when Jesus died on the Cross and the land went dark from noon to three, Aries, the Lamb of God could be seen overhead?It does mean that the entire image of the stars is not any kind of reality, but just a representation of false events crafted by a creator.
I've never heard that the constellation of Aries is also seen as the Lamb of God. I'd have associated the The Word of God from Revelation19:12 image wise.Despite the fact that, when Jesus died on the Cross and the land went dark from noon to three, Aries, the Lamb of God could be seen overhead?
And I'll guess and say you've never heard that the constellation Gemini is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords," have you?I've never heard that the constellation of Aries is also seen as the Lamb of God.
Ever notice how Revelation depicts Jesus, when He comes back the second time?Shemjaza said:I'd have associated the The Word of God from Revelation 19:12 image wise.
Absolutely!Shemjaza said:Regardless, that's clearly a description of a miraculous event...
Correct.Shemjaza said:... not a mix of real and fictional images of stars seen in the sky as is occurring in a universe where no events occurred before 4000(ish) BC.
The issue is that pulses, flairs and planets drifting in front of stars like Alpha Centauri are events that occurred while we were arguing about religion on this forum... but the stars forming and flaring in the Pillars of Creation are not real events, they are images formed from light and radiation placed in the void and not emitted from the stars they appear to be coming from.And I'll guess and say you've never heard that the constellation Gemini is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords," have you?
That's because academia caters to the Greeks, whose [classical] language is so corrupt, that the word "sin" means missing the bullseye on a target.
And you've got Plato to thank for that.Ever notice how Revelation depicts Jesus, when He comes back the second time?
Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
This time He's mad -- real mad!
And He comes back as the Psalm 72 / Isaiah 11 liberator; not the Psalm 22 / Isaiah 53 sacrifice.Absolutely!
Only God could do something like that.
It wasn't a solar eclipse, or some volcano eruption, or some other natural phenomenon that academia would buffalo you into considering.Correct.
There's nothing fictional about it.
The only fiction you'll see is on paper, i.e. on that test paper in your classroom.
You simply can't mix and match.The universe would not need to be static in a YEC model. I do not recall any YEC demand to that effect. Just to say. YEC'ers are also allowed to think
If I may be allowed to pass on this topic. I understand that maybe the verse "God stretches out the heavens"
(which seems to be in many places - click)
could be taken to be a part of a biblical cosmology, and maybe you are well versed in the topic more than I, I simply wanted to make the point that that expression resounds with an expanding universe.
The day I see one trying I will give her the credit. So far I haven't even seen that.Would you know it, if they were?
And if it's "impossible," as you say it is, do they at least get credit for trying?
No it wouldn't.
Suppose that's not the way it happened?
Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?
Am I being deceptive?
Just a thought here. Every science borrows from other sicences. Not everything is studied down to the minute detail before the prospect can get his graduation. Actually, sometimes having the paper implies more authority (at least knowledge-based authority) than what you really have.I guess people in all professions sometimes "fake it".
Suppose this; suppose that. That’s a lot of suppositions to make: like the existence of worm hole, the exiting of a god, the fact that this god created wormholes and that these wormholes are fine tuned for showing a 6000 years old Universe the way we see it.No it wouldn't.
Suppose that's not the way it happened?
Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?
Am I being deceptive?
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?