Post Reply
Page 19 of 53  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 53 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 9:00AM #181
McAtheist
Posts: 8,186

iam: When Creationists spend a great amount of time and thought concerning that issue, and you desire an answer, it seems to me strange that you would refuse to read / consider their input.  Instead you are willing to trust / rely upon the non-creationist yahoos and take their word for the issue.  When you, yourself, don't understand the issues involved, you are relying upon those who act like they do.  Great success at getting an answer, to you, in that mode...


Actually, science HAS had great success in getting answers to questions regarding the world around us while YECism has failed to provide any. Funny how you YECs never notice that basic fact.


And this question is so straight-forward that it really needs just common sense to answer: if we are seeing light today from stars that are 4 billion light-years distant from us, then that light has been in transit for at least 4 billion years.  If the fundamental laws governing the speed of light had varied radically, there would be evidence.  No evidence, no reason to imagine some massive deviation iin how the real world works.


And this example illustrates precisely why people outside the cult of YECism don't trust answers from YECs: 1.) unlike real scientists, their "researchers" have a clear agenda and elevate it over real data and evidence 2.)  most YEC "researchers" aren't even trained in the scientific fields that they malign 3.) YECism is well-known for its inherent and wide-spread dishonesty 4.) YECism has been shown to be wrong over and over and over.


So, major fail on all counts!


Cool

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 10:20PM #182
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,665

May 10, 2012 -- 7:56AM, Sigmund wrote:



Sigmund: iama, why do you continue to present Humphreys' unevidenced hypothesis as if it were proof?


You have never responded to any of our questions about his lack of evidence for:


The universe having an edge;


The Earth being at or near the center of this bounded universe; and,


The shell of water he claims surrounds the known universe and is the only means for him to make his calculations work.



iama: According to the following article, there are evolutionary astronomists who are beginning to question the Big Bang and its accoutrements, and are beginning to look at the Earth being near to the center of the Universe, and that the Universe is bounded, because of the data being collected from type 1a supernovae.


What are type 1a supernovae telling us?


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 10:49PM #183
Abner1
Posts: 6,391

iama wrote:


> According to the following article,


The "article" was a creationist puff-piece rather than a scientific article.  I'd challenge you to provide any such claim in a scientific journal, but it's a waste of time - you don't read anything written in scientific journals.


It can be taken as given that this is more of your usual lies about what mainstream scientists have discovered.  I started to skim the damned article (and I don't use that term lightly) and then gave up in disgust.  Can't you creationists *ever* be honest about what mainstream science actually says?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 11:45PM #184
steven_guy
Posts: 11,748

May 10, 2012 -- 10:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama: According to the following article, there are evolutionary astronomists who are beginning to question the Big Bang and its accoutrements



No they are not. And there is no such thing as an "evolutionary astromonist". What the f*** is an "astronomist"? 


May 10, 2012 -- 10:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

and are beginning to look at the Earth being near to the center of the Universe



The earth isn't even at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy - it is right out in the outer suburbs, in orbit around an unremarkable star. The Milky Way isn't at the centre of the universe either. The universe has no "centre'.


May 10, 2012 -- 10:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

and that the Universe is bounded, because of the data being collected from type 1a supernovae.



Who feeds you this hogwash? Why don't you look at some real science for a change?


May 10, 2012 -- 10:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

 What are type 1a supernovae telling us?



You know very well I won't go to sites run by depraved criminals and degenerate liars.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 10, 2012 - 11:48PM #185
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,417

May 10, 2012 -- 10:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


 


iama: [...] and are beginning to look at the Earth being near to the center of the Universe,


 





Oooooo! Copernicus was wrong! I knew it! Maybe next we can start burning people at the stake!

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 12:00AM #186
steven_guy
Posts: 11,748

Do you think that the sun goes around the earth, Iamachildofhis? If not, why not?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 10:28AM #187
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

May 10, 2012 -- 10:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


May 10, 2012 -- 7:56AM, Sigmund wrote:



Sigmund: iama, why do you continue to present Humphreys' unevidenced hypothesis as if it were proof?


You have never responded to any of our questions about his lack of evidence for:


The universe having an edge;


The Earth being at or near the center of this bounded universe; and,


The shell of water he claims surrounds the known universe and is the only means for him to make his calculations work.



iama: According to the following article, there are evolutionary astronomists who are beginning to question the Big Bang and its accoutrements, and are beginning to look at the Earth being near to the center of the Universe, and that the Universe is bounded, because of the data being collected from type 1a supernovae.


What are type 1a supernovae telling us?



You really need to read something other than creationist literature.


A simple google search brought me to this site:


Cosmological Constant at Scholarpedia


The article discusses the accelerating universe and how it actually solves some problems. For example:


"The universe appeared younger than the oldest stars.


Stellar evolution is well understood, and observations of stars in globular clusters and elsewhere indicate that the oldest stars are over 13 billion years old. We can compare this to the age of the universe by measuring the universe's rate of expansion today and tracing that back to the time of the big bang. If the universe had decelerated to its current speed then the age would be lower than if it had accelerated to its current speed (see Figure 5). A flat universe made only of matter would only be about 9 billion years old -- a major problem given that this is several billion years younger than the oldest stars. On the other hand, a flat universe with 74% cosmological constant would be about 13.7 billion years old. Thus the observation that the universe is currently accelerating solved the age paradox."



And since you brought supernovae into the discussion, perhaps you can answer this question that 57 contines to run away from.


What is the creationist explanation for how stars burn through their available fuel and explode as supernova in only 6,000 years?


Any appeal to Starlight and Time won't help because it would mean that distant stars are burning through their fuel at a slower rate than our own sun and therefore we shouldn't see ANY supernovae.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 2:32PM #188
steven_guy
Posts: 11,748

May 11, 2012 -- 12:00AM, steven_guy wrote:

Do you think that the sun goes around the earth, Iamachildofhis? If not, why not?


Bump

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 11, 2012 - 8:11PM #189
steven_guy
Posts: 11,748

Iamachildofhis, I am curious to about how you think we discovered that the earth orbits the sun instead of the other way round.  Do you think it is a credible scientific discovery or merely idle speculation?


How do we know that the earth orbits the sun?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 1:35AM #190
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,665

May 11, 2012 -- 8:11PM, steven_guy wrote:



steven_guy: iamachildofhis, I am curious to about how you think we discovered that the earth orbits the sun instead of the other way round.  Do you think it is a credible scientific discovery or merely idle speculation?


How do we know that the earth orbits the sun?



iama: The Earth has four seasons.  The Earth's axis is tilted off of perpendicular by 23.5 degrees. The sunlight is directly overhead at the Equator twice a year.  The sunlight is directly over the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, once, each per year.


Using the Earth's positions at perihelion and aphihelion, by parallax measurements we can determine the distances of other, more distant stars.


The retrograde motion (apparent) of other planets against the background of stars.


The night time stars change through out the seasons.


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 19 of 53  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 53 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook