Jump to content


Big Bang Vs. Id As Science And Issues With Cs Documentation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#21 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 18 December 2006 - 03:08 AM

Then I guess red shifts are not real either. So we really don't know if our universe is expanding because it's all philosophy. And red is not a real property of the real universe, correct?

View Post


That doesn't make sense. It isn't the "redness" of a redshift that matters, it's the change in the wavelength of the light (which can be detected by instruments other than the human eye.

In reality, redshifts rather prove my point. If you viewed the light from a stationary position, it wouldn't be red.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 December 2006 - 03:12 AM

I guess when I use the same words from one post from another member, to show how what was said, should apply to all of the universe. It must have revealed how ridiculous it sounded. For Nominal just made my point for me.

For what I posted was not what I believed.

#23 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 18 December 2006 - 10:49 AM

This might be moot...but IS(?) there truly, really (?) a "stationary point" or position anywhere in the universe? Red shift is the relative difference in velocity between two moving bodies. Similar to Doppler effect, except with light rather than sound waves. :)

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 December 2006 - 04:57 AM

This might be moot...but IS(?) there truly, really (?) a "stationary point"  or position anywhere in the universe? Red shift is the relative difference in velocity between two moving bodies. Similar to Doppler effect,  except with light rather than sound waves.  :)

View Post


Considering just about everything is moving away from us. That we would basically be the center in the creation. Things can change direction as forces of gravity pull upon objects in space. Such as the objects that are now in our solar system.

Which means there should be more objects moving towards us than what we observe. Directions changing by gravity does not catch every object into a orbit, or make them collide. But through the estimated 18 billion years. There is a lot of time there for things to change direction.

Even NASA uses the gravity of the moon to redirect space craft back to earth. They even use planets gravity to change the course of satellites sent into space. Seeing that this can be done, means we should have more objects just going in all different directions. But that's not what we see, is it?

Added: Which also means there was really not a center point in which everything came from. It looks more like a placement of things far away, that are moving away. Do you really think 18 billion years is enough time create all that we see? Do you think 18 billion years explains why the objects in our universe are not all related in matter make up? Do you think 18 billion years explains how our sun is a stable star, just perfect for life to exist on one planet?

There is no scientific law that can explain how each planet in our solar system is not only made differently, but have different ages. And not one planet even comes close to the age of the universe itself. Name any matter known to man that dates even close to the supposed age of the universe. Then ask yourself why it does not.

Different make up, different times, defying physical laws, etc.... Points to a Creator with eternal powers to do these things. Other wise, science would have explainations, instead of excuses as to why even the existance of our universe defies all known scientific laws.

#25 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 19 December 2006 - 09:55 AM

This might be moot...but IS(?) there truly, really (?) a "stationary point"  or position anywhere in the universe? Red shift is the relative difference in velocity between two moving bodies. Similar to Doppler effect,  except with light rather than sound waves.  :)

View Post


Nope. Everything is relative. Even if you did find a "stationary point" and calculated everything from that, you could still use the laws of physics to show that the stationary point was moving relative to something else.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users