Jump to content


Photo

What Is This A Picture Of?


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

#21 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 24 September 2007 - 07:16 PM

I think you'll find that Black Hole's are real world objects Deadlock.  If you look at the Schwarzschild solution for General Relativity you'll see that t can be exchanged for r inside the event horizon.

View Post


Of course Black Holes are real objects.But , Noone entered into a Black Hole or sent a probe to get data about what happens there. All we have are mathematical models based on assumptions.

#22 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2007 - 04:57 AM

i think its very pretty a true tribute to the Glory of Gods Creation

#23 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 26 September 2007 - 02:55 AM

i think its very pretty a true tribute to the Glory of Gods Creation

View Post


It's God's paint brush in space.

#24 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 September 2007 - 10:32 AM

The reason I posted this, is because with a creationist time scales these are not real objects. This is a picture of objects that do not exist and never will, due to the limited (10,000 year?) duration that creationists give the universe.

I wanted an insight into how someone could rationalise this. Also, it is nice to know that we can agree that it is a very beautiful picture.

#25 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 26 September 2007 - 10:54 AM

The reason I posted this, is because with a creationist time scales these are not real objects.  This is a picture of objects that do not exist and never will, due to the limited (10,000 year?) duration that creationists give the universe.

I wanted an insight into how someone could rationalise this.  Also, it is nice to know that we can agree that it is a very beautiful picture.

View Post



Oh... yeah man, there is a thread three or four down about the same thing.

Creationist have a few explanations (theories)

The one I stick to is that God created the light with the stars. i.e. God said let there be light.

Plus the bible says that god stretched out the heavens about 7 times in the bible. I take that pretty literally.

#26 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 September 2007 - 01:09 PM

The one I stick to is that God created the light with the stars.  i.e. God said let there be light.

View Post


I know a lot of creationist like to believe that, but it is rejected by other creationist as it paints the god as deceitful.

Plus the bible says that god stretched out the heavens about 7 times in the bible.  I take that pretty literally.

View Post


Yes it does, but what does that really mean?

#27 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 27 September 2007 - 03:41 PM

I know a lot of creationist like to believe that, but it is rejected by other creationist as it paints the god as deceitful.


No offense man, and I really mean that. But I've only heard atheist say that. And it just doesn't make sense. for God to be deceitful about something means he would have to lie.

What is there to lie about.?

"Let there be light" What else could that possibly mean? If the man says he made light, why would making light be deceitful?

God isn't really responsible for leaving an explaination of HOW he did everything. But he did leave plenty of evidence proving that he DID create everything.

Yes it does, but what does that really mean?

View Post


I take it to be literal. He expanded space, he took the edges and stretched them in every direction

whether that is true, or if he just added to the edges is really debatable in christian circles. But the fact that it is mentioned 7 or so times is pretty significant, at least it is to us.

God isn't really responsible for leaving an explaination of HOW he did everything. But he did leave plenty of evidence proving that he DID create everything.

#28 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 27 September 2007 - 10:58 PM

I know a lot of creationist like to believe that, but it is rejected by other creationist as it paints the god as deceitful.


Canned answers.

Yes it does, but what does that really mean?

View Post


Well let's see.

1) Stretched: extended or spread over a wide area or distance; "broad fields lay stretched on both sides of us".

2) Heavens: The heavens are the sky, the celestial sphere, or outer space. Indeed, sky is the original meaning of the word.

Might be the reason the universe is shaped like a football.
http://www.isa.org/T...ContentID=23393

#29 Guest_ItinerantLurker_*

Guest_ItinerantLurker_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:37 AM

No offense man, and I really mean that.  But I've only heard atheist say that. And it just doesn't make sense. for God to be deceitful about something means he would have to lie.

What is there to lie about.?

"Let there be light"  What else could that possibly mean?  If the man says he made light, why would making light be deceitful?


Because light in the physical universe is emitted from objects like stars and supernovas. That means that the light we detect from events more than 6,000 years away depict events that did not actually occur. It would be like me telling you that I built my house in two days and then actually showed you a time stamped home video of me taking two months to do the job. How is that not deceitful? Additionally, light is not the only thing we can detect from distant events, those same supernovas also emit radiation, did god fake that as well?


God isn't really responsible for leaving an explaination of HOW he did everything.  But he did leave plenty of evidence proving that he DID create everything.
I take it to be literal.  He expanded space,  he took the edges and stretched them in every direction


Even metaphysically, that doesn't really provide an explanation of what we observe. And technically, god made himself responsible for how his universe looks when he made the claim that we can learn about his nature by studying it. What would you learn about my nature from the above example? Would you put me down as a pinnacle for morality? A bastion of truth? A halberd of honest? An acropolis of awesome? My examples are getting out of hand, but I trust you get the idea.

#30 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:26 AM

Canned answers.
Well let's see.

1) Stretched: extended or spread over a wide area or distance; "broad fields lay stretched on both sides of us".

2) Heavens: The heavens are the sky, the celestial sphere, or outer space. Indeed, sky is the original meaning of the word.

Might be the reason the universe is shaped like a football.
http://www.isa.org/T...ContentID=23393

View Post


How does this take into account the observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation?

#31 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 05 December 2008 - 12:56 PM

Can God break His own laws that were created to work in our time-line? No.

So for us to understand how our time-line works, as we research it, age was added. So that we would know how old it would have been if it had all happened naturally. By doing this, God was not being deceptive. But giving man a choice on what he wants to believe.

Just because God is God, and we think He can do anything, He may have some limitations. And what I mean by limitations is that there are things He cannot do and still remain Holy. Not creating a whole universe that totally looks less than 10,000 years old maybe one of those things.

Example #1: If a black hole takes said amount of time to form, and for them to exist in less than 10,000. God has to add age. You might think, why even have the black hole if it is not going to happen in that amount of time (10,000 years)?

In the equation of the creation of our universe, black holes may be one of the parts that is required for it to work the way that it does. Leave them out, and the universe may not work at all. Understand? So in order to have them, along with every thing else that makes the universe work. God had to add age. The laws of this time-line require this in order to work.

Example: Because this is a natural physical universe, all things must abide by the natural physical laws contained in it. So to create something that does not go, would destroy such a universe because breaking the laws don't make the laws work.

This is also why there are things that don't seem to fit. Such as objects that do not date back to their origins (the big bang).

But the laws of creating a workable universe require that the laws of this time-line not be broken. Explains why things are the way they are. The equation of how the universe would work, along with the laws of this time-line, had to be followed in order for this time-line to ever work. Can laws of this universe be broken without repercussions? I think not.

Being that time (In the beginning) was the first thing created. All things created after this had to abide by the laws of time in this time-line.

Example #2: If a black hole was going to exist in this time-line, it has to have the age required in order to keep all the laws of this time-line in working order. The repercussions of breaking such time-lines may have been the destruction of this whole universe.

Example #3: Let's say you were doing an experiment in a lab. This experiment required certain chemicals to be added at certain times in order to get desired results. What you were waiting on is break down of certain chemicals, and reactions of chemicals that were combined. Now if you keep breaking the laws of the formula, the end result would not be the desired result. So you have to follow these laws. Why? Because those are the laws of this time-line.

So God created the universe abiding by the laws that allowed this universe to exist. And in order for it to exist, the formula required that black holes be there. Other galaxies, etc.... But for all this to work, these things had to have a time-line of their own (part of the time-line law). Not adding this age to each object would make the end desired result not work.

So God creating time already set the laws of this time-line into motion. Laws that more or less created a formula that had to be followed in order for everything to work.

These laws may be:

A black hole cannot date less then 10,000 years old because this time-line has laws that require it to take much longer (time laws have to be followed just like a formula does in a lab). So to keep from breaking that law, which may destroy this time-line, God has to create the black hole as if it has been around for billions of years (adding age to it). Without this age adding, these time-line laws would be broken and this time-line would cease to exist.

The same thing applies to all other things in the created universe.

Edited: To make clearer.

#32 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 December 2008 - 07:51 PM

Can God break His own laws that were created to work in our time-line? No.

So for us to understand how our time-line works, as we research it, age was added. So that we would know how old it would have been if it had all happened naturally. By doing this, God was not being deceptive. But giving man a choice on what he wants to believe.

Just because God is God, and we think He can do anything, He may have some limitations. And what I mean by limitations is that there are things He cannot do and still remain Holy. Not creating a whole universe that totally looks less than 10,000 years old maybe one of those things.

Example #1: If a black hole takes said amount of time to form, and for them to exist in less than 10,000. God has to add age. You might think, why even have the black hole if it is not going to happen in that amount of time (10,000 years)?

In the equation of the creation of our universe, black holes may be one of the parts that is required for it to work the way that it does. Leave them out, and the universe may not work at all. Understand? So in order to have them, along with every thing else that makes the universe work. God had to add age. The laws of this time-line require this in order to work.

Example: Because this is a natural physical universe, all things must abide by the natural physical laws contained in it. So to create something that does not go, would destroy such a universe because breaking the laws don't make the laws work.

This is also why there are things that don't seem to fit. Such as objects that do not date back to their origins (the big bang).

But the laws of creating a workable universe require that the laws of this time-line not be broken. Explains why things are the way they are. The equation of how the universe would work, along with the laws of this time-line, had to be followed in order for this time-line to ever work. Can laws of this universe be broken without repercussions? I think not.

Being that time (In the beginning) was the first thing created. All things created after this had to abide by the laws of time in this time-line.

Example #2: If a black hole was going to exist in this time-line, it has to have the age required in order to keep all the laws of this time-line in working order. The repercussions of breaking such time-lines may have been the destruction of this whole universe.

Example #3: Let's say you were doing an experiment in a lab. This experiment required certain chemicals to be added at certain times in order to get desired results. What you were waiting on is break down of certain chemicals, and reactions of chemicals that were combined. Now if you keep breaking the laws of the formula, the end result would not be the desired result. So you have to follow these laws. Why? Because those are the laws of this time-line.

So God created the universe abiding by the laws that allowed this universe to exist. And in order for it to exist, the formula required that black holes be there. Other galaxies, etc.... But for all this to work, these things had to have a time-line of their own (part of the time-line law). Not adding this age to each object would make the end desired result not work.

So God creating time already set the laws of this time-line into motion. Laws that more or less created a formula that had to be followed in order for everything to work.

These laws may be:

A black hole cannot date less then 10,000 years old because this time-line has laws that require it to take much longer (time laws have to be followed just like a formula does in a lab). So to keep from breaking that law, which may destroy this time-line, God has to create the black hole as if it has been around for billions of years (adding age to it). Without this age adding, these time-line laws would be broken and this time-line would cease to exist.

The same thing applies to all other things in the created universe.

Edited: To make clearer.

View Post


It's only said to be millions of years old because they measure how long it would take for light to travel from point A to point B. Thats it. Just a constant speed of light.

But I do agree that God created with age, Adam proves this.

#33 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 06 December 2008 - 09:07 PM

It's only said to be millions of years old because they measure how long it would take for light to travel from point A to point B.  Thats it.  Just a constant speed of light.

But I do agree that God created with age, Adam proves this.

View Post



Thats it? lol :o . Astronomy 101 Yoda recommends for you. Besides, has anyone ever measured light exceeding c? If nobody has why would a good scientist assume that it does?

#34 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 07 December 2008 - 03:51 AM

Thats it?  lol  :o .  Astronomy 101 Yoda recommends for you.  Besides, has anyone ever measured light exceeding c?  If nobody has why would a good scientist assume that it does?

View Post


And has anyone seen something come from nothing on it's on?

If so, then you could answer where the first matter came from without invoking or implying the supernatural, or a god did it type answer. Can you?

Age dating is a measurement of age only. It cannot prove that the actual time required to produce that aging effect ever happened. Now when you guys come up with time dating, and a way to prove that this amount of time actually passed, then you will see me listen.

This is because science cannot prove that time and age were "always" two processes that "always" worked together and were never separate processes (one did not control the other). Even though science will try and imply that a process we see today was always the same in past time. Science has also twisted this claim to make their own ideas work, and only imply to deny other ideas that work against their own.

Example: Creationists came up with the idea about the magnetic field of the earth weakening through time. which also menas it became stronger back in time. And because we relied on the idea that things stay the same through history as we see now (as science told us). The old earthers came up with the polar flip idea (twisting things) so that what was claimed did not have to be applied. And then used some type of lame evidence to prove that this happens when there are other explainations for the same type evidence, but were ignored.

While not taking into account that our magnetic field deflects solar wind. And in order for the poles to flip, the strength of the magnetic field would have to weaken at some point which would allow the solar wind to strip away parts of our atmosphere. Some lame excuses were given about this as well as if a polar flip had been observed and they know exactly what would happen.

All of this was thought up as an "excuse" as to why the magnetic would never become to strong to support life. An excuse is a lie that is cloaked in reason to explain away the truth that exists.

So where did the matter come from for the big bang? Will you use science, or reason to answer such a question?

#35 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 December 2008 - 10:44 AM

All of this was thought up as an "excuse" as to why the magnetic would never become to strong to support life. An excuse is a lie that is cloaked in reason to explain away the truth that exists.

View Post


You are going to have to explain a lot of these concepts in detail. I've never even heard of this theory.

Are these mainstream creationist ideas?

#36 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:06 PM

And has anyone seen something come from nothing on it's on?


Yes depending on what is nothing. Particles and anti-particles pop into existence all of the time. If they do so in external fields they separate and do not annihilate. So we had nothing and now we have two renegad particles.

However, the claim that Scott is making is that c could have changed. So lets not move the goal posts.

#37 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 08:33 AM

Thats it?  lol  :) .  Astronomy 101 Yoda recommends for you.  Besides, has anyone ever measured light exceeding c?  If nobody has why would a good scientist assume that it does?

View Post


Indeed thats it, and the constant speed is your base, and your base are belong to us.

#38 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 01:24 PM

Indeed thats it, and the constant speed is your base, and your base are belong to us.

View Post



Well I measured the speed of light nearly 100 years ago and it was c. Then I measured nearly everyday since and it is always c. I have an incredibly consistent theory that tells me that no matter how I measure c it will always be the same. But I say screw you Einstein and I keep measuring but I always get c. Why would I introduce a value larger than c just to appease young earth creationists when that doesn't agree with reality? To do so is the very definition of bad science.

#39 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 08:32 PM

Well I measured the speed of light nearly 100 years ago and it was c.  Then I measured nearly everyday since and it is always c.  I have an incredibly consistent theory that tells me that no matter how I measure c it will always be the same.  But I say screw you Einstein and I keep measuring but I always get c.  Why would I introduce a value larger than c just to appease young earth creationists when that doesn't agree with reality?  To do so is the very definition of bad science.

View Post


Uh huh, and the speed of lights number is 299,792,458 m/s. Now, how exactly was this number derived. Was it simply guessed, and now its the number used in all distance equations concerning light speed?

I want to know HOW this number was derived. If the number is changed to 399,892,558 for istance, how would that change anything with the equation? It wouldn't. You would always get answers based upon that number. All I want to know is where this number came from.

Do not avoid what I am asking for it is all that I am asking. No further input past that point is necessary. If the number was assumed, then I shall firmly disreguard any and every theory based around that number.

#40 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2008 - 09:30 PM

Uh huh, and the speed of lights number is 299,792,458  m/s.  Now, how exactly was this number derived.  Was it simply guessed, and now its the number used in all distance equations concerning light speed? 

I want to know HOW this number was derived.  If the number is changed to 399,892,558 for istance, how would that change anything with the equation? It wouldn't.  You would always get answers based upon that number.  All I want to know is where this number came from.

Do not avoid what I am asking for it is all that I am asking.  No further input past that point is necessary.  If the number was assumed, then I shall firmly disreguard any and every theory based around that number.

View Post



The speed of light is trivially derived from relativistic electrodynamics. Starting with maxwell's equation for a E-field in a vacuum:

curl(E) = -mu_0*H_t

where H_t is the time derivative of H. If I take the curl of both sides and use a basic vector identity I find

Laplacian(E) - (epsilon_o * mu_o)* E_t = 0

Noting that wave mechanics tells us that (epsilon_o*mu_o) is just the inverse of the propagation of the wave squared we see that

c = [epsilon_o*mu_o]^(-1/2)

Vacuum permittivity (epsilon_o) is just the ratio of D/E in free space, and the magnetic constant (mu_o) is just the ration of B/H in free space. Plugging in these values we get a value for c.

The derivation of c is not arbitrary. If you just decided to change the speed of light you are really changing the fundamental relationship between B and H and D and E. I think this would require some new physics. Considering that special relativity has been shown time and time again via any test we throw at it to make correct predictions you would need a lot of evidence to overturn it. However, changing the speed of light wouldn't just be bad for classical relativity but it would prove worse for other areas of physics. I am not saying that there isn't new physics that would show that the speed of light was slightly slower or faster at some point in time, however, my scientific sensibilities would be shocked to discover the kind of drastic changes needed by some creationists.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users