YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2012, 01:33 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
To Bucky Ball: in reference to your post of ( a whole bunch of nonsensical ramblings )


Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that. You obviously don't know the subject matter here - you can't even get your own evolutionary story telling right.

Even secular cosmologists freely admit that both dark energy and dark matter are hypothetical constructs used to attempt to explain phenomena they don't understand. They have absolutely not been proven to exist. I'm pretty sure even Wikipedia would admit to that.

And your 99% number? That's not close to the commonly hypothesized amount of either dark matter or dark energy.

Honestly, even if I were an atheist and evolutionist, I could disprove most of what you say here. The rest is obviously just rantings from an uneducated mind. Seriously, you should stop. You're giving the rest of the thinking atheists here a bad image.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 02:27 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2012 02:40 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(18-03-2012 01:33 AM)SixForty Wrote:  To Bucky Ball: in reference to your post of ( a whole bunch of nonsensical ramblings )


Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that. You obviously don't know the subject matter here - you can't even get your own evolutionary story telling right.

Even secular cosmologists freely admit that both dark energy and dark matter are hypothetical constructs used to attempt to explain phenomena they don't understand. They have absolutely not been proven to exist. I'm pretty sure even Wikipedia would admit to that.

And your 99% number? That's not close to the commonly hypothesized amount of either dark matter or dark energy.

Honestly, even if I were an atheist and evolutionist, I could disprove most of what you say here. The rest is obviously just rantings from an uneducated mind. Seriously, you should stop. You're giving the rest of the thinking atheists here a bad image.

I see you CAN'T respond, or read apparently.. I said NOTHING about evolution. "nonsensical rambings"...(speaking of ad hominem opinion), is not an argument. nor a rufutaion. Dark matter and Dark Energy HAVE been proven, if you don't know that you are hopeless. (See Laurence Krauss) , 99% IS the hypothesized number. Ignorance again. You have not refuted ONE of the arguments about your Yahweh god, and we are waiting for ONE quality of her existence that does NOT require time. As far as the "honestly bla bla bla..." THAT ain't gonna fly. Do it. Or shut up. You are the one that's lookin the fool at this point.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 03:52 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
To Bucky Ball:

Well, I tried to warn you here, but since you didn't heed it, here comes the beatdown.

Definition of Dark Matter:

Wikipedia: dark matter is a currently unknown type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe
Meriam-Webster: nonluminous matter not yet directly detected by astronomers that is hypothesized to exist to account for various observed gravitational effects
Dictionary.com: a hypothetical form of matter invisible to electromagnetic radiation, postulated to account for gravitational forces observed in the universe

Definition of Dark Energy:

Wikipedia: dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe
Meriam-Webster: a hypothetical form of energy that produces a force that opposes gravity and is thought to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe
Dictionary.com: a hypothetical form of energy whose negative pressure counteracts gravity and is assumed to be responsible for the universe expanding at an accelerating rate.

Hmmm, seems like a whole lot of "hypothetical" there, and not much proof. Let me give you a piece of advice - just because scientists speak as if something has been proven, doesn't actually mean that it has. It just means they believe it's true. Worse yet, just because media reports and articles state that something has been proven, doesn't mean that it has. Honestly - it barely took me 3 minutes to refute you here.

As for your numbers, the trending seems to show that dark matter is 22% of the universe, and dark energy is 72%. So that makes 94%, which last time I checked, didn't equal 99%.

As for qualities of God that don't rely on time, how about omniscience, omnipotence, holiness, loving, just, merciful, and gracious for starters. None of those qualities requires time.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is this - you're the one who looked like a fool here. Run along to bed - the grown ups here are trying to have a serious conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SixForty's post
18-03-2012, 04:44 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Firstly, thank you for your reply. I appreciate that Big Grin

Let's have fun with your counter points Smile
1)I think the rocks you are referring to would be zircons, and the specific experiment that would lead to this conclusion is done by Dr. Russ Humphreys, am I right?

Firstly, subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. The rocks are obtained from the Fenton Hill site, which is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. It would be impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.

Furthermore, if helium concentrations stay high around the rocks, it is possible for helium to diffuse into voids and fractures in the zircons, and high helium pressures could reduce the rate at which helium diffuses out. Either of these scenarios would invalidate the helium diffusion calculations by Dr. Humphreys.

Let's have a side track and talk about radiometric dating. You claimed that "These rocks (from Mt St Helens) are 30 years old, and we know this through active physical observations. However, when dated with the K-Ar method (the potassium-argon method you actually mentioned) they come out to a date of over 250,000 years old." I suspect such an anomaly could be due to the ejection of pre-formed rocks from within the mountain itself to the surface.

Also, the constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence. Using supernovae as examples, they are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes. These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. Such predictions hold for various supernovae such as SN1987A, SN1991T and even supernovae billions of light years away.

Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates.

Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records. How would you then explain this?

2) Stage 2 supernovae you say? How would you explain the existence of Stage 3 supernovae remnants? Also, supernovae are evidence for an old universe in other ways. Supernovas are evidence that stars have reached the end of their lifetime, which for many stars is billions of years. Furthermore, the formation of new stars indicates that many of these stars are second generation stars. The universe must be old enough for some stars to go through their entire lifetime and for the dust from their supernovas to collect into new stars. Finally, it takes time for the light from the supernovas to reach us. All supernovas and SNRs are more than 7,000 light-years from us.

3) Coal deposits, where you sometimes find diamonds, contain small concentrations of uranium. Now and then, a uranium atom will decay through spontaneous fission, producing neutrons. The neutrons react with the nitrogen-14 in coal...
1n + 14N → 14C + 1p
and you have carbon-14(plus a proton)!

4) You have not considered new comets in the Kuiper Belt. The comets that entered the inner solar system a very long time ago indeed have evaporated. However, new comets enter the inner solar system from time to time. The Kuiper Belt hold many comets deep in space, beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they do not evaporate. Occasionally, gravitational perturbations from other comets bump one of them into a highly elliptical orbit, which causes it to near the sun.

5) This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years. Furthermore, the population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history.

Thank you Smile

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like robotworld's post
18-03-2012, 06:20 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Alright, let's have some fun with your counter points. Smile

1) You are correct about the zircon crystals in reference to helium diffusion. Although not the only scientist involved in the project (there were many), Dr Humphreys was the main author for the reports and published materials. He's also been the main defender of the work.

As for your rebuttals, it appears that your copy and paste skills are in good working order. Almost word for word extracts from the article on TalkOrigins. Is that where you copied it from to change a little bit, or is there another source out there that has already incorporated the changes in the wording you present? Regardless, the issues that you've brought up here, (pressure and temperature differences, faulting and volcanism, hydrothermal vein intrusion, etc) have all been dealt with. They were taken into account during the experiment, well documented, and fully explained when evolutionists complained. As for "IF helium concentrations stay high", "POSSIBLE for helium to diffuse into voids", "COULD reduce the rate", that's a whole lot of speculation and nothing to back it up. It's a good thing that was already covered though - the helium concentrations in the zircons was approximately 200 times the surrounding rocks. So no chance of pressure pushing helium back in.

Seriously though - all the items you brought up have been dealt with. Most have been dealt with in 2 articles here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

Also, Dr. Humphreys has listed all the objections that have been sent his way publicly here. He has refuted them all, handily enough that the objectors have given up. Here is the list:

http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-...nd-critics (in a chart halfway down)

The most telling fact of the issue is this: the original findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals; they have been reference many times in peer-reviewed journals; the objections have not been published, except for on the web; despite that, the objections have all been addressed anyway; and the objectors have all gone silent.

"I suspect such an anomaly could be due to the ejection of preformed rocks within the mountain itself". First of all, suspicion is not a counter point. Second, this is known to be false. The samples taken were from lava that was fresh at the time of the eruption. Known and verifiable from observational data, since it happened and was observed in the very recent past.

As for your comments about different radiometric dating techniques giving consistent rates, that just isn't true. It's commonly known in geology that, depending on the age that you think the rock is, you use a specific method of radiometric dating to make the measurement. This is specifically because the various different isotope methods do NOT agree.

And radiometric dating methods are not consistent with other methods. Dendrochronology ring dating does not always match up with carbon-14 dating; ice core dating is almost exclusively calibrated with radiometric methods, so to use it for verification would be arguing in a circle, and what historical records are you referencing?

2) Looks like more copy and pasting from TalkOrigins. (see, I'm one of those people who do actually read both sides of an issue, and explore it from every angle I can, to get as much information as I can) Honestly, you should really get a new source. The science on that site is shoddy at best (hurried together simply to try and refute creationists) and the vast majority of their articles are out of date. But I digress.

As for explaining stage 3 supernovas, there are none conclusively known in our galaxy. Therefore, no need to explain them. External to our galaxy is irrelevant, because the age of them can be explained the way any distant starlight can be, which I have provided information for previously in this thread. But back to the main point - the number of stage 2 supernovas apparently stands unrefuted.

As for your discussion of stars reaching the end of their lifetime, and that being billions of years - that's if you accept the unproven assumptions of the Big Bang. I refuse to accept data based on known unproven assumptions as counter evidence. The formation of new stars indicating that these are second generation is again based on assumptions from the Big Bang, and can't be considered proof. As for all supernovas and SNRs being more than 7000 light years from us, that's irrelevant given the theoretical solutions to the distant starlight I have posted above.

3) A very lovely hypothetical story. Unfortunately, that's all it is. Just a hypothesis. Were the diamonds in question found in coal deposits? If so, did those coal deposits show evidence of uranium? Regardless of those facts, your story still only ends up with Carbon-14 in the coal, not in the diamond. Please explain how the Carbon-14 then migrates into the diamond, the hardest known natural substance, which is impervious to contamination? Regardless, the issue of neutron capture was already taken into account - from possible N-14 impurities INSIDE the diamonds already. So it takes your scenario even further, and still the impurities could only account for less than 1 ten-thousandth of what would be possible, even in the most favourable possible conditions for contamination.

4) The problem with your Kuiper Belt theory is twofold.

First, from a sheer statistical modelling standpoint, the Kuiper Belt would require billions of objects to be able to generate the number of comets we see in the inner solar system. But to date we have found far, far less, and statistically modelling of what we do know about the Kuiper Belt shows the total number of objects to most likely be in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. Just not enough.

Second, the sizes of the objects in the Kuiper Belt are simply to big to be the source of comets. Most comets are under 10 km across, while most Kuiper Belt objects are over 100 km across. What we observe just doesn't add up to your hypothesis.

This is why the Oort cloud was proposed. It was the only solution to the problem. The thing is - it's entirely hypothetical. There is no known evidence for it, other than the very comets that it is trying to explain.

5) Interesting how you can claim certain rates are constant (like radiometric dating) but others aren't (like population growth). It's amazing how quickly people can pick and choose how they want to view things based on what they want the evidence to say. Accept it on one side, when it supports you - reject it on the other side, when it refutes you. Smile (See how I tossed that one in there just to make a point?)

But seriously, even taking into account centuries of wars, famines, plagues, etc, and adjusting the rates for those things, it still leads to similar results. And what exactly would be these unreasonable populations in early history that you claim?

Thanks for the discussion - it's been fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 07:05 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
And how is all this about traveling light? Tongue

640, all yer sources seem to be, you know... Angel

Science ain't absolute, but to say "most likely" or "it is hypothesized" alla time gets old with the quickness. Generally, BBT is a "most likely" scenario, evolution is a "near certain" consideration, and YEC is "pretty much quackery." Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-03-2012, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2012 09:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(18-03-2012 03:52 AM)SixForty Wrote:  To Bucky Ball:

Well, I tried to warn you here, but since you didn't heed it, here comes the beatdown.

Definition of Dark Matter:

Wikipedia: dark matter is a currently unknown type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe
Meriam-Webster: nonluminous matter not yet directly detected by astronomers that is hypothesized to exist to account for various observed gravitational effects
Dictionary.com: a hypothetical form of matter invisible to electromagnetic radiation, postulated to account for gravitational forces observed in the universe

Definition of Dark Energy:

Wikipedia: dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe
Meriam-Webster: a hypothetical form of energy that produces a force that opposes gravity and is thought to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe
Dictionary.com: a hypothetical form of energy whose negative pressure counteracts gravity and is assumed to be responsible for the universe expanding at an accelerating rate.

Hmmm, seems like a whole lot of "hypothetical" there, and not much proof. Let me give you a piece of advice - just because scientists speak as if something has been proven, doesn't actually mean that it has. It just means they believe it's true. Worse yet, just because media reports and articles state that something has been proven, doesn't mean that it has. Honestly - it barely took me 3 minutes to refute you here.

As for your numbers, the trending seems to show that dark matter is 22% of the universe, and dark energy is 72%. So that makes 94%, which last time I checked, didn't equal 99%.

As for qualities of God that don't rely on time, how about omniscience, omnipotence, holiness, loving, just, merciful, and gracious for starters. None of those qualities requires time.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is this - you're the one who looked like a fool here. Run along to bed - the grown ups here are trying to have a serious conversation.

So it IS Wikipedia where you get your education. I knew it. Oooh. I'm so scared. The "beat down" huh ? Oooh. No Yahweh yet. Waiting ....You said Dark Energy and Dark Matter had not been proven, and now were up to 94%, so I guess we're getting there.

The god crap is child's play. Omniscience...that is "KNOWING everything".. "knowing" is a mental PROCESS. That requires TIME AND MATTER. If you "know" something, a BRAIN is WORKING. "Work being done" requires TIME. Omnipotence means "powerful". Unless your god is impotent she has to ACT. That requires TIME. (If she is "omnipotent" why does she not reveal herself?). "Being holy", the PROCESS of loving, just and providing mercy ALL require time. "Merciful", means "giving mercy". THAT requires TIME. Try try again. They are all projected human traits. Bla bla bla. I give you a week here. Either they will kick you off, or you will flame out like all the others. Humphries indeed. You got nothing.

EVERYTHING about the "salvation" paradigm requires and assumes god WENT, (get it..TRANSITIONS)..from a state of non-appeasement TO a state of having been appeased by the ACTION, (blood sacrifice) of her child. EVERY bit of that nonsense assumes that your god exists within a temporal dimension. Transitioning takes TIME.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-03-2012, 10:16 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
I'll do the proper and relevant research for the first four evidences you brought up. Regarding population growth, using a constant rate of 0.00473% per year, extrapolating from the times of Noah's Ark (approximately 2348BC), and there are 8 people on board on the Ark. From the Bible, God wiped out all of humanity which leaves them the sole 8 people on the planet.

Using the formula: 8 x (1.00473)^N, where N is the number of years since the flood. Let N be 4360, which is the year 2012, we get 6,891,963,595, a close estimation to the current world population.

Extrapolating backwards, when the Ancient Olympics began in 776BC, there were only 13326 people on Earth. Forward to 273BC, where according to the model, the world population is 143,065. However, the population in China alone during this period of time is estimated to be 30,000,000 during the Zhou Dynasty. The biblical account of Exodus took place in 1290BC, where according to the model, the world population is 1178. Yet, the Bible mentions that Israelites alone numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," during the Exodus. The Roman Empire in 117AD, had a population between 65,000,000 to 88,000,000, and that is just approximately 35% of the world's population. According to the model, the world population in 117AD is only 901,129.

Interesting points you brought up to counter my counter argument against your counter points. I'll read up more and will reply again once I'm more prepared Smile

Thank you.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2012 08:12 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(18-03-2012 07:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  [b]So it IS Wikipedia where you get your education. I knew it. Oooh. I'm so scared. The "beat down" huh ? Oooh. No Yahweh yet. Waiting ....You said Dark Energy and Dark Matter had not been proven, and now were up to 94%, so I guess we're getting there...

Don't be "that guy". Wikipedia is a fine source for information, assuming that the information in the article is also finely sourced in the references below.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are hypothetical, and I don't need to cite sources 'cuz SixForty already did. Even if he's wrong, this is not one of the things he's wrong about. Just let it go.
(17-03-2012 06:42 PM)SixForty Wrote:  Again, you are accusing me of things which I have not stated. You are making assumptions here which are entirely unwarranted. First of all, I don't claim that light currently travels at different speeds. I accept that light travels at a fixed speed. Second, I am not making claims about the way time is distorted now - the claims were about the points in time when the universe was well contracted in the past. During the expansion of the universe, gravitational effects (in a non-homogeneous universe) would affect the flow of time differently. Time would flow faster towards the edges of the universe, and slower towards the middle. The further back we go into the past, as the universe was smaller, gravity would have a greater effect and the time distortions would be immense. For example, think about how time is distorted in a black hole at a greater rate due to it's greater gravity.

I did the math, and you didn't present evidence that would be contrary. The findings on Earth of time distortion due to relativity that you presented was in microseconds of difference, or a margin of error at .0000000001% or less. If you believe that light traveled here from distant galaxies and that we perceive it as having traveled at 1.55 million times its known speed, then we're looking at a margin of error at 99.999999999% or more. This isn't using what we've learned from Einstein and applying it to cosmology, but rather coming to a preconceived conclusion (such as a young universe) and just hoping the math fits.

This reminds me a lot of the debate over radiometric dating. We assume that radioactive materials decay at a fixed rate, and young earth creationists believe that they must have decayed at a much faster rate in the past... but not just a little bit... 750,000 times faster. And like radiometric dating, it's not currently speeding up (assumed to have been happening in the past), so those margins or error are theorized to be even greater because such quick change happened over a much shorter time period. I agree there's no evidence to support these assumptions made --- that things always move at the speed they move now --- as you say, they are pretty much accepted as truisms. But it's just utilizing Occam's Razor. Unless we observe a change in decay rate or our perception of the speed of light, there's no reason to expect that they were different at one time. We're using the data we have and extrapolating the simplest explanation.

Quote:See, this is the problem with so much of mainstream science. It tries to hide the assumptions and philosophies that certain theories are built upon. I really like a comment that George Ellis made one time. He's one of the most prominent cosmologists in the world, who has even coauthored a book with Stephen Hawking. He said "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that"

Science has an agenda... everyone does. That agenda is to discover knowledge. When you suggest they're "hiding assumptions and philosophies", I think you're suggesting "hidden agenda" here, and that's something you'd have to present evidence for. Attacking someone's philosophies is often an ad hominem attack, so it's possibly irrelevant. It's true that philosophy may result in bias which may skew results, and that's why we have double-blind studies and peer review, as well as attempts to gain data first and then build a model on it rather than the other way around. Assumptions are part of "fitting an argument in the scope of current knowledge", but I don't see what about them is "hidden".

Quote:As for the other assumptions in the Big Bang, there may actually be evidence to show that they aren't true. The quantization of red-shifts from distant galaxies seems to present a model that actually shows the universe is not homogeneous, and that there is a distinct centre, and that the earth is quite close to that centre. If this does pan out and is true, then the whole Big Bang theory comes crashing down - 13.5 billion years and all.

First of all, if everything is heading away from the center of the universe then it makes sense that everything is moving away from other things, too. Just picture a grenade going off --- the shrapnel are not only moving away from the detonation but also becoming distant from each other. A huge amount of red shift is to be expected from any vantage point in the universe. The small amounts of blue shift that we observe are due to objects rotating around objects rotating around objects, and these rotations can sometimes cause things to move closer to us (although not constantly) despite the fact that everything is moving away. But in a model of a universe created by God, red shift's proliferation (especially compared to blue shift) doesn't have an explanation. One would just assume that God wants everything to move away from Earth or some other point, with no stated purpose.

Quote:
(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  No data that we've ever found has suggested that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Now that's just not true and you know it. There's plenty of evidence. If you want to explain it away under a cosmological evolutionary paradigm, you're welcome to believe that. But to claim that the evidence doesn't even exists is just sticking your head in the sand.

I don't know it. For as long as we've been dating the universe, it has always been seen as much longer than 6,000 years. All of the data suggesting a young universe comes from scientists who have a literal-bible agenda, and I dismiss that as easily as I do the Muslims that tell us that modern science keeps confirming the Q'uran. If you start with a conclusion then hunt for the data to support it, it's likely that you'll find it. The problem with this method is confirmation bias.

Quote:I'm glad you post this, because it highlights the exact problem with evolution - if you presuppositionally believe that man evolved from molecules, surprise, surprise! You can find the evidence! In your exact words - if you start with a wrong premise, it's easy to make a wrong conclusion! Smile

Life from nonlife is abiogenesis, not evolution. I actually felt that you might understand evolution... up to this point. Now I'm not so sure.

Darwin was studying to be a parson before he stumbled upon evolution. He didn't presuppose that there was no God, and he wasn't out to prove it. He did discover the role of genetics and hereditary traits, which is the foundation for changes from organism to organism, before it was later (or perhaps simultaneously) affirmed by Mendel. Evolution happens. Now I don't want to assume that you're one of those people who argue "microevolution is not the same as macroevolution", so please tell me if this is your argument or you are denying microevolution, too, so I can then debate the proper stance.

Darwin did not discover the origin of life. No one has. There are hypotheses about self-replicating peptides discovered in the ocean as being where RNA came from, but nobody can say with certainty. We can't run an experiment to make life arise spontaneously, and even if we could it would take far too long to ever see results (we're guessing the experiment would take millions of years). But it does make more sense that life arose from molecules rather than "from nothing", because we've observed things created out of molecules but we have never observed something coming "from nothing", obviously because we've never had a true nothing to observe.

As to your other objections, I will look into them. I'd like to be truly educated on them, and that's not going to happen overnight.
[/quote]

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 06:45 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(18-03-2012 07:14 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Dark Energy and Dark Matter are hypothetical, and I don't need to cite sources 'cuz SixForty already did. Even if he's wrong, this is not one of the things he's wrong about. Just let it go

Dark Energy, and Dark Matter are NOT "hypothetical". There is a lot of evidence for them. What they are exactly, is not known, but their effects have been observed many times. (See any Laurence Krauss book or lecture, among MANY others). The Wikipedia article is outdated. Read something recent. As for "let it go", .... if I need any advice, I'll be sure and ask for it. SixForty has betrayed a phenomenal ignorage, in the fields of Astronomy, Cosmology, Theology, Philosophy, and Biblical Exegesis, and Form Criticism. He is wrong about almost everything, including the assertions about Dartk Energy and Dark Matter. He criticizes Cosmologists for doing EXACTLY what he is doing, by desperately trying to contort the creationist model, to fit known facts.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: