Jump to content


Photo

Why We Just Don't Believe Them


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 September 2015 - 10:10 AM

Cosmic evolution. It's a joke just like biological evolution.

 

Let me give the readers a good idea as to why the status quo, hard-core cosmo-evo's have no credibility with us:

 

Quote: (From Sky and Telescope, no less)

 

Our own Milky Way is home to around 300 billion stars, but it’s not representative of galaxies in general. - 

 

Then, on the same page and not even a half inch away they make this statement under a photo illustration of the Milky Way:

 

The band of the Milky Way across the night sky. Our Sun is only one of a 100 billion stars in our galaxy. - See more at:

 

http://www.skyandtel...tars-are-there/

 

But it gets worse:

 

Quote: " When we add the portion of the Milky Way that lies outside the sun’s orbit, we get approximately 200 billion stars."

HOWSTUFFWORKS

SCIENCE

 

The truth is that they don't know how many stars are in our galaxy nor any other galaxy. They are guessing. Proof:

 

(From Space.com)

"Billions and billions" of stars in a galaxy (after a quote often mistakenly attributed to Carl Sagan) is how many people imagine the number of stars you would find in one. Is there any way to know the answer for sure?

 

"It's a surprisingly difficult question to answer. You can't just sit around and count stars, generally, in a galaxy," said David Kornreich, an assistant professor at Ithaca Collegeicon1.png in New York State. He was the founder of the "Ask An Astronomer" service at Cornell University.

 

Even in the Andromeda Galaxy — which is bright, large and relatively close by Earth, at 2.3 million light-years away — only the largest stars and a few variable stars (notably Cepheid variables) are bright enough to shine in telescopes from that distance. A sun-size star would be too difficult for us to see. So astronomers estimate, using some of the techniques below.

 

What is an estimate? a guess. Definition: estimate  to guess or calculate the cost, size, value, etc. of something:(Cambridge).

 

Here's another example...

 

All galaxies are movingicon1.png away from each other, and their light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum because this stretches out the light's wavelengths. This is called "redshift." In a rotating galaxy, however, there will be a portion that is more "blueshifted" because that portion is slightly moving toward Earth.

 220px-Redshift_blueshift.svg.png

 

The word 'All' means 'everything' or ' the whole of

2 : 'every member of' (Mirriam Webster). 
 
'All' means 100% of that which is under consideration.
 
BUT...notice...
 

 

Quote: "There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe."

(From: Ask An Astronomer)

 

So much for 'All galaxies are moving away from us..." and even if we were young naive students who only wish to know the real facts about such matters we would be forced to take an 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' set of choices as to which 'expert' is telling the truth. 

 

I am continually finding such ridiculous and contradictory statements from evolutionists in both the cosmic and the biological realms of modern 'science'. Most of those who do adhere to Darwinism cannot be trusted in their final conclusions about things.



#2 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 21 September 2015 - 10:42 AM

Are you sure it's because some interns made mistakes when writing articles for science blogs and not that you've already decided what you believe whether the evidence supports it or not?

Because when you say stuff like this it kind of seems like the latter:

NO! I will not diss their present measurement in distance; it is the time frame that I/we will not accept. Distance is not what you are primarily dishonest about. You are dishonest about the way you treat God's holy Word....like garbage. The statements that the prophets made (beginning in Genesis) tell us that God supernaturally expanded His universe and you, sir, diss what the Lord says and ALSO His ability to do what He says regardless as to the existing laws of science --- never mind the fact that He made those laws and He can suspend or override them according to His divine will.



#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 September 2015 - 10:52 AM

popoi:

 

Are you sure it's because some interns made mistakes when writing articles for science blogs and not that you've already decided what you believe whether the evidence supports it or not?

 

 

 

Why did you even ask that question to begin with? Deal with the differing conclusions that YOUR cosmological/evolutions promoters gave us. Which one is correct?

 

Because when you say stuff like this it kind of seems like the latter:

 

 

 

We aren't discussing my reasons. We are discussing what THEY (your cosmo/evo) have concluded...which directly conflict with each other. Now kindly answer those problems.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#4 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 21 September 2015 - 11:46 AM

Deal with the differing conclusions that YOUR cosmological/evolutions promoters gave us. Which one is correct?

In rough order of credibility, from highest to lowest:

1. Actual scientific literature (not presented)
2. The actual astronomers
3. The science journalist
4. The intern

Wikipedia is in there somewhere, but it's kind of a wild card.

Since the last two are the ones making the contradictory statements, it seems safe to conclude that they're the ones that are wrong.
 

We aren't discussing my reasons.

You titled this thread "Why We Just Don't Believe Them". You started it by saying "Let me give the readers a good idea as to why the status quo, hard-core cosmo-evo's have no credibility with us:". Both of those statements imply that you are presenting the reasons you don't believe astronomers. You can't possibly expect anyone who's read more than a few of your posts to believe that a few inconsistent statements are the actual reason, especially after you've made it very clear what you believe, and how you can explain away any contradictory evidence.

The topic can be discussed just fine without the ruse.
  • keysi likes this

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 September 2015 - 03:43 PM

popoi:

 

In rough order of credibility, from highest to lowest:

1. Actual scientific literature (not presented)

 

 

Where do you think they got their information, genius? (psssst: just keep reading) ;)

 

2. The actual astronomers

 

 

Then tell us what the actual astronomers tell us? You did't document a thing.

 

3. The science journalist

 

 

Facts are facts no matter who happens to give the facts. But which journalist should we believe? Same as the 'expert's'(as you are about to see)... it's eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

 

4. The intern

 

 

I haven't quoted any of them. 
 

Wikipedia is in there somewhere, but it's kind of a wild card.

 

 

YOU are a 'wild card'.

 

Since the last two are the ones making the contradictory statements, it seems safe to conclude that they're the ones that are wrong.

 

 

I think that would be called a 'bald-faced assertion fallacy'. WHERE IS YOUR DOCUMENTED PROOF?
 

You titled this thread "Why We Just Don't Believe Them". You started it by saying "Let me give the readers a good idea as to why the status quo, hard-core cosmo-evo's have no credibility with us:". Both of those statements imply that you are presenting the reasons you don't believe astronomers.

 

 

 

Does NASA qualify? Quote:  "Recently I was asked to help someone answer the question of how many stars are in the Milky Way – that there were differing answers out there, and which was the right one?

This question turns out to have a really interesting (and possibly frustrating?) answer. And the answer is that we really don’t know. We can make estimates, but there isn’t a firm, solid, 100% answer.

 

Oh, but they couldn't resist giving the general public their guesswork: " The most common answer seems to be that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way on the low-end and 400 billion on the high end. But I’ve seen even higher numbers thrown around.

http://asd.gsfc.nasa...-the-milky-way/

 

Do the astronomers at the National Institute of Aerospace qualify, popoi? Yes./No. Tell us, please.

Dr. Sten Odenwald Become a fan

Astronomer, National Institute of Aerospace

Counting the Stars in the Milky Way

 

Quote: "Many online sources mix up the Milky Way mass with the number of equivalent stars like the sun, and get estimates near 200 billion assuming all stars are like our sun and there is no dark matter. So sometimes a simple-sounding question can have many answers depending on what you assume in the calculations. For myself as an astronomer, I usually use a round number like 'one trillion stars' for the Milky Way.

 

Another guess, but way, way off the usual 100 to 400 billion estimate of all other guesses by his comrades in accidentalism.

So the truth is that the 'experts' don't know the answer any better than the 'journalists' nor the 'interns'. So chew on this one, popoi, for it's a reality you can't dodge this time. Not honestly anyway.

You can't possibly expect anyone who's read more than a few of your posts to believe that a few inconsistent statements are the actual reason, especially after you've made it very clear what you believe, and how you can explain away any contradictory evidence.

 

 

Oh, but I just did....but we can bet grandma's inheritance that you won't admit you've been proven wrong.
 

The topic can be discussed just fine without the ruse.

 

 

Ruse? What ruse? It was just the truth. You just don't like what's on the menu.



#6 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 September 2015 - 07:06 PM

Cosmic evolution. It's a joke just like biological evolution.

 

Let me give the readers a good idea as to why the status quo, hard-core cosmo-evo's have no credibility with us:

 

The truth is that they don't know how many stars are in our galaxy nor any other galaxy. They are guessing. Proof:

 

So because it is impossible to individually count the stars in our galaxy forcing us to rely on educated guesses (estimates), cosmic evolution is a joke? I don't understand your argument, it doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

Here's another example...

 

All galaxies are movingicon1.png away from each other, and their light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum because this stretches out the light's wavelengths. This is called "redshift." In a rotating galaxy, however, there will be a portion that is more "blueshifted" because that portion is slightly moving toward Earth.

 220px-Redshift_blueshift.svg.png

 

The word 'All' means 'everything' or ' the whole of

2 : 'every member of' (Mirriam Webster). 
 
'All' means 100% of that which is under consideration.
 
BUT...notice...
 

 

Quote: "There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe."

(From: Ask An Astronomer)

 

So much for 'All galaxies are moving away from us..." and even if we were young naive students who only wish to know the real facts about such matters we would be forced to take an 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' set of choices as to which 'expert' is telling the truth. 

 

I am continually finding such ridiculous and contradictory statements from evolutionists in both the cosmic and the biological realms of modern 'science'. Most of those who do adhere to Darwinism cannot be trusted in their final conclusions about things.

 

 

Fyi Barnard's Star is a, star, not a galaxy. 

 

Yes some galaxies are blue shifted in our reference frame, the article should have said "all galaxies sufficiently far enough away from us are moving away from us", so what?

 

If all you have is an article written for laymen that could have been worded better, then you are making much ado about nothing. 



#7 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 September 2015 - 07:07 PM

I am continually finding such ridiculous and contradictory statements from evolutionists in both the cosmic and the biological realms of modern 'science'. Most of those who do adhere to Darwinism cannot be trusted in their final conclusions about things.

So, you claim you "just don't believe" what astronomers say because they don't know if the number of stars in the Milky Way is 278,654,598,742 or 278,654,598,743.  Seriously?

 

All "guesses" regarding the number of stars in a galaxy are estimates.  I've seen estimates for the number of stars in Andromeda from 300 billion to a trillion.  In the Milky Way, I've seen numbers from 100 billion to 300 billion.  Estimates for the number of galaxies has run from millions to 100 billion.  (My bet is that the latter number is closer as it results from the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.)  I've even seen a recent report that there may be as many as a trillion galaxies.

 

Regardless of the exact number, there are many billions of stars in the typical galaxy and there are many billions of galaxies.

 

That said, I don't believe for one second that the reason you "just don't believe them." is differences in the estimates for the number of stars and/or galaxies.  I think your rejection of mainstream science comes down to this:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. .....

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

(Source: https://answersingen...rg/about/faith/ ) (Emphasis Pi's)

 



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 September 2015 - 04:12 AM

 

 

Piasan: Regardless of the exact number, there are many billions of stars in the typical galaxy and there are many billions of galaxies.

 

Are any of them forming?

 

The fundamental problem with evolution-philosophy is it's failure to acknowledge that transitional-stages are always 100% conjecture.

 

:) 

 

It's one thing to claim evolution, but if all of the facts show a COMPLETED creation, then you have to admit that the evo-philosophiction is closer to Alice In Wonderland, than science, and can you show us planets forming, or only completed planets?

 

Nobody knows what it means. It's all guesswork. I include my own beliefs when I say, "nobody knows". Let's face it - only God knows how it got there.

Nobody will ever know, all we do is make educated guesses, which is enough to rely on the miraculous when you think about it, because the miraculous is always present. it is clear that the only thing to believe is the only possible answer, that God miraculously created it all, and to accept that we have to accept that by faith alone.

 


  • Calypsis4 and like this

#9 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 September 2015 - 06:08 AM

Goku:

 

So because it is impossible to individually count the stars in our galaxy forcing us to rely on educated guesses (estimates), cosmic evolution is a joke? I don't understand your argument, it doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

 

Nothing makes common sense to you, O Orwellianized one. Cosmic evolution is a joke not just for this but for the fact that our universe is doing just the opposite to what the cosmo theorists tell us:" it is a degenerating univserse and it will eventually experience a heat death because of that degeneration.
 
Mikethewize hit the nail on the head with the right question: "Are any of them (stars) forming." Those of you who believe in that nonsense haven't observed a single star form in the history of mankind. Hmm, sounds sort of like the fact that no one has ever observed a single organism transform from one classification into another completely different organism either by empirical proof or by the fossil record. But you believe in it anyway.

 

Fyi Barnard's Star is a, star, not a galaxy. 

 

 

So what? It may come as a great surprise for you to learn that galaxies are .....made of stars. :consoling:

 

Yes some galaxies are blue shifted in our reference frame, the article should have said "all galaxies sufficiently far enough away from us are moving away from us", so what?

 

 

What, pray tell, is 'sufficiently far enough away'? Oh, you mean those regions of deep space (i.e. the 'red shift desert' and beyond) that have all those spiral galaxies that should not even exist now? You mean those stellar objects that should have spun out millions (& some billions) of years ago?  :get_a_clue:

 

If all you have is an article written for laymen that could have been worded better, then you are making much ado about nothing.

 

 

First I was criticized for posting articles by journalists (i.e. Science.com, & TheUniverse Today, etc. who get their information from scientists!). Now I am criticized for posting information from astronomers (uh....NASA & the National Institute of Aerospace!) and yet EVEN THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for you guys.

 

This is the big part of the reason that you and piasan and others who have been hanging around here on EFF for so long have absolutely no credibility with us. Zero. And like the mind-controlled drones that Orwell described in 1984 who could not be embarrassed even when obvious facts were laid before them, you likewise are never embarrassed by that which is plain-as-day against what you believe in. You and those like you have destroyed your critical thinking skills by the acceptance of lies. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a lie.



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 September 2015 - 07:46 AM

Nothing makes common sense to you, O Orwellianized one. Cosmic evolution is a joke not just for this but for the fact that our universe is doing just the opposite to what the cosmo theorists tell us:" it is a degenerating univserse and it will eventually experience a heat death because of that degeneration.

For decades, every cosmologist I know of has said the universe "will eventually experience a heat death."  The only reason the "big rip" fate of the universe has replaced "heat death" is that the "big rip" will happen before "heat death."

 

Mikethewize hit the nail on the head with the right question: "Are any of them (stars) forming." Those of you who believe in that nonsense haven't observed a single star form in the history of mankind.

There are perfectly valid reasons for this.  Primary among them is that we should not expect to have seen a star form.  (Reference the "why don't we see stars forming" discussion.)  A secondary reason is that you have previously ruled out those areas astronomers think stars are forming.

 

Fyi Barnard's Star is a, star, not a galaxy. 

So what? It may come as a great surprise for you to learn that galaxies are .....made of stars.

Is there some reason nearby stars (Barnard's is only 6 light years and is one of the closest to Earth) can not be moving toward Earth?

 

What, pray tell, is 'sufficiently far enough away'? Oh, you mean those regions of deep space (i.e. the 'red shift desert' and beyond) that have all those spiral galaxies that should not even exist now? You mean those stellar objects that should have spun out millions (& some billions) of years ago? 

You do realize those galaxies (such as your favorite BX 442) may have "spun out" billions of years ago and we wouldn't know it, don't you?  This is because the light we see left that galaxy billions of years ago... we have no idea what it looks like today.   It's kind of like the sun could explode this very instant, but we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes.

 

First I was criticized for posting articles by journalists (i.e. Science.com, & TheUniverse Today, etc. who get their information from scientists!). Now I am criticized for posting information from astronomers (uh....NASA & the National Institute of Aerospace!) and yet EVEN THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for you guys.

As I recall, I criticised you for:

a)  Citing multiple articles by different journalists that all reference the exact same scientific research paper.  (Four articles about one paper is still only one scientific source.)

b ) Citing the exact same article twice in two different publications as if it was two different sources.

c)  Using Wikipedia as a scientific resource when YEC on this list are so critical of Wiki.



#11 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 September 2015 - 08:02 AM

 

 

The fundamental problem with evolution-philosophy is it's failure to acknowledge that transitional-stages are always 100% conjecture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ sir, the Fundamental Problem and FAILURE is that the "Scientific" theory of evolution is....... "UNDEFINED".    :farmer:

 

 

 

 ...and can you show us planets forming, or only completed planets?

 

 

ONLY....Completed Planets/Stars

 

 

Nobody will ever know, all we do is make educated guesses

 

 

Wrong-O-Rama.

 

Can water "Naturally" form...

 

5-ice-sculptures.jpg

 

??

 

If water can't do this "Naturally" then "Ipso Facto".....what's your only other choice?

 

 

 

The same with the formation of Planets/Stars (AND MATTER as a matter ( ;) ) of fact).

 

"Natural" Formation of Planets/Stars would VIOLATE: 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass; ERGO....Ipso Facto.....

 

 

GOD !!!  The ALMIGHTY

 

 

.....it is clear that the only thing to believe is the only possible answer, that God miraculously created it all, and to accept that we have to accept that by faith alone.

 

 

Yes, Biblical FAITH...

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

With SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.  Like I've shown above.



#12 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 September 2015 - 08:42 AM

Friends:

 

I changed my mind. I will answer this shallow thinking persons points:

 

For decades, every cosmologist I know of has said the universe "will eventually experience a heat death."  The only reason the "big rip" fate of the universe has replaced "heat death" is that the "big rip" will happen before "heat death."

 

 

 

 

The degeneration of the universe is OBSERVABLE ....now. The so-called 'big rip' is merely a hypothesis. Let him prove otherwise.

 

New Calculations Suggest Universe May be Closer to Heat Death

 

Universe has more entropy than once thought.

 

For all its tumult—erupting stars, colliding galaxies, collapsing black holes—the cosmos is a surprisingly orderly place. Theoretical calculations have long shown that the entropy of the universe—a measure of its disorder—is but a tiny fraction of the maximum allowable amount.

A new calculation of entropy upholds that general result but suggests that the universe is messier than scientists had thought—and slightly further along on its gradual journey to death, two Australian cosmologists conclude.

An analysis by Chas Egan of the Australian National University in Canberra and Charles Lineweaver of the University of New South Wales in Sydney indicates that the collective entropy of all the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies is about 100 times higher than previously calculated. http://www.usnews.co...r-to-heat-death

 

So once again we are left wondering which of the 'experts' we should believe and its the 'eeny meeny, miny, moe' option yet again.

 

But the eventual heat death of our universe is assured by both obsevation and the physics describing it:

 

Quote: "The second law is a statement that all processes go only in one direction, which is the direction of greater and greater degradation of energy, in other words, to a state of higher and higher entropy...

 

 In other words, an isolated system always goes from a less probable to a more probable configuration. We hence have the following statement for the second law. I. In any physical process, the entropy S for an isolated system never decreases; that is, we have 

img1161.png

 

The Third Law of Thermodynamics As temperature tends to absolute zero, so does entropy. In other words 

 

 

But of course we believe that the Second Coming of Christ will be long before this ever occurs and He will regenerate and make perfect again what was once ruined by our sin and rebellion to God.

 

There are perfectly valid reasons for this.  Primary among them is that we should not expect to have seen a star form.  (Reference the "why don't we see stars forming" discussion.)  A secondary reason is that you have previously ruled out those areas astronomers think stars are forming.

 

 

No there isn't. He is just making things up as he goes as he usually does. The fact is that there has been well over 5,000 yrs of written human history with people observing the celestial regions above us with great precision from earliest times and yet no one has seen the formation of a star. Then the fact is that we HAVE OBSERVED several supernova's during that same period of time which belies his point altogether. So what we have observed as opposed to what we have NOT observed matches our position, not his.

Is there some reason nearby stars (Barnard's is only 6 light years and is one of the closest to Earth) can not be moving toward Earth?

 

 

 

Let him answer his own question. I am wondering why he asked it to begin with.

 

You do realize those galaxies (such as your favorite BX 442) may have "spun out" billions of years ago and we wouldn't know it, don't you? 

 

There he goes again with his blatant unbelief in a supernatural God and his notion that God cannot do what He tells us in His Word that he did in the supernatural expansion of our universe...all of which eclipses any true notion of a time frame in terms of millions of billions of years.

 

The Bible tells us that the day will come (in probably the not-to-distant future) that the stars of the heavens will come crashing down to earth...yet the earth, though greatly damaged, will survive.  

 

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. Revelation 6:13

 

But how can this prophecy be fulfilled unless God supernaturally changes the size, distance, and velocity of light all at the same time? And how could earth not be totally destroyed by even one of those stars striking the earth unless there is an incredible change in physics....a change that only an all powerful, all knowing Being could affect? But that's just the point  ;). God can and will. That will be the end of all skepticism about what God can do....including what He did in the past in that expansion.

 
This is because the light we see left that galaxy billions of years ago... we have no idea what it looks like today.   It's kind of like the sun could explode this very instant, but we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes.

 

 

 

8 minutes in THIS time frame. NOT 8 minutes (or 13.7 billion yrs etc.) in the time frame before God changed things supernaturally. 

 

As I recall, I criticised you for:

 


a)  Citing multiple articles by different journalists that all reference the exact same scientific research paper.  (Four articles about one paper is still only one scientific source.)

 

The point is in just how widespread the idea is to begin with and how much it is being accepted by those of his ilk. He misses the point...as usual.

b ) Citing the exact same article twice in two different publications as if it was two different sources.

 

 

 

NASA and the National Institute of Aereospace are not the same sources nor did they give the same information. Once again he isn't telling the truth.

c)  Using Wikipedia as a scientific resource when YEC on this list are so critical of Wiki.

 

Let him quote me criticizing the use of Wikipedia. He won't be able to.



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 September 2015 - 09:03 AM

For decades, every cosmologist I know of has said the universe "will eventually experience a heat death."  The only reason the "big rip" fate of the universe has replaced "heat death" is that the "big rip" will happen before "heat death."

 

There are perfectly valid reasons for this.  Primary among them is that we should not expect to have seen a star form.  (Reference the "why don't we see stars forming" discussion.)  A secondary reason is that you have previously ruled out those areas astronomers think stars are forming.

 

Is there some reason nearby stars (Barnard's is only 6 light years and is one of the closest to Earth) can not be moving toward Earth?

 

You do realize those galaxies (such as your favorite BX 442) may have "spun out" billions of years ago and we wouldn't know it, don't you?  This is because the light we see left that galaxy billions of years ago... we have no idea what it looks like today.   It's kind of like the sun could explode this very instant, but we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes.

 

As I recall, I criticised you for:

a)  Citing multiple articles by different journalists that all reference the exact same scientific research paper.  (Four articles about one paper is still only one scientific source.)

b ) Citing the exact same article twice in two different publications as if it was two different sources.

c)  Using Wikipedia as a scientific resource when YEC on this list are so critical of Wiki.

 

I could answer every single one of his shallow thinking points,...but why bother? His mind is surrendered to lies and lies control his thinking. So I'm not going there.

The history suggests one of us is lying.  I submit it is the one who submits multiple citations of the same paper .... and sometimes the exact same article .... as if they are different sources. 

 

Do you have a substnative response?   No?   OK....... that's pretty self-explanatory.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 September 2015 - 09:07 AM

 

Enoch: Yes, Biblical FAITH...

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Enoch, the only genuine faith IS BIBLICAL faith That is all I accept, all other definitions of faith come under "superficial, phoney pluralism", to my mind. The Buddhist and Muslim ARE the "natural man" the bible speaks of as their "faith" is phoney, so I am not sure why you point that out. What else would I mean since I am a Christian with biblical faith?

 

When I said we don't know what happened in the past, I wasn't including what we do know ( miraculous intelligent design) I was just talking about the particulars of how X formed. So for example, all I would mean is that I don't know how God formed a star, I did not see that. I will never know. Can I know if He created it on one second or two minutes or two hours? No - I can never know, all I see is that the only explanation is that He must have created it because it requires a miracle.

 

That's just one of the things about history - we can never know, but yes, I accept what God says happened but obviously I take that by faith in God, "for we live by faith not by sight". 

 

I think the point is, that like Jesus said, "you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe though they have not seen".

 

If we see we know, if we know we have proof and then faith is MOOT, IMHO.

 

Stop fighting baba, or he shall refute you! ;) :D Okay, we had some small disagreements in a couple of threads, but that doesn't mean you should hold a grudge, I let you have the last words didn't I? :)



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 September 2015 - 09:15 AM

Piasan, can you at least see how excuses for why we don't ever see stars form when there are trillions of them, might be regarded as weak conjecture on behalf of beloved-evo?

 
Superman-theory states that in the past men could fly, which is why we see none of them flying now because of the theory of less electro-magnetism on earth. :) ;)
 
Endless ad-hoc excuses still don't provide any evidence of an evolving creation, all of the evidence shows the opposite- like Cal said, a completed creation crumbling because of entropy.
 
Do we ever see mountains grow, or new things form? No - we just seem to see erosion.
 
Evo always requires faith-in-evo.


#16 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 22 September 2015 - 09:22 AM

Where do you think they got their information, genius? (psssst: just keep reading)

No way to know. It could be legitimate scientific literature, it could be an anecdote they overheard at a party, or it could be taken from their freshman physics notes. At best, we're getting a second to third hand account of what the actual literature says.

Then tell us what the actual astronomers tell us? You did't document a thing.

The astronomers in your sources seem to agree with the 100-400 range.
 

Facts are facts no matter who happens to give the facts. But which journalist should we believe? Same as the 'expert's'(as you are about to see)... it's [i]eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it so. It's only a matter of choosing at random who to believe if you don't want to put in the work necessary to actually evaluate those claims. I don't think you're going to find anyone who says that science education should be a matter of finding a single source you can believe and sticking to it exclusively. Even if you did, the source they recommend almost certainly wouldn't be some science blog.
 

I haven't quoted any of them.

The bio of the author of the first post you linked:

Maria Temming, Sky and Telescope's editorial intern, studies Physics and Creative Writing at Elon University. - See more at: http://www.skyandtel...h.vP6M6apK.dpuf

 

YOU are a 'wild card'.

no u
  

I think that would be called a 'bald-faced assertion fallacy'. WHERE IS YOUR DOCUMENTED PROOF?

The only actual contradictions you pointed out were the science journalist saying all galaxies are moving away from each other, and the article that stated 100 and 300 billion without qualifying either.
 
 

Does NASA qualify?

Qualify as what? I think they're correct about the current state of astronomy, specifically that we don't know for sure how many stars there are but we have estimates based on various techniques.

I don't think for a second that if they did have a definite answer that you'd believe them.

#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 September 2015 - 09:48 AM

 

Piasan, can you at least see how excuses for why we don't ever see stars form when there are trillions of them, might be regarded as weak conjecture on behalf of beloved-evo?

I can see how SUPERFICIALLY that might seem like a strong argument.  However, when one examines the situation and evaluates how likely it is that a star would form in the vicinity of Earth in the time frame we have had the technological capability to observe the event we find it is highly unlikely we should see a star birth.

 

Here's a calculation I did in the "Why Don't We See Stars 'Igniting'" discussion showing exactly why it is not surprising we have never observed a star birth:

 

Radius of the observable universe, 13.8 billion light years.  (From NASA)

Distance at which we are able to resolve individual stars  about 175,000 light years (from a conversation with Danny Faulkner)

Number of stars born per day 11 million (From Kent H*vind)

Time since invention of the telescope = 400 years

 

(1)  Volume of the observable universe  = 4/3 pi r^3 = 1.10e31 cubic light years.

(2)  Volume of the universe in which individual stars can be resolved = 2.24e16 cubic light years

(3)  Portion of the universe in which individual stars can be resolved (1=100%) = (2)/(1) = 2.04e-15

(4)  Number of stars that will form per day in (3) = 11,000,000 * (3) = 2.24e-8

(5) Number of stars that will form in that region in 400 years = (4) * 400 * 365.25 = 0.00328

(6)  Don't forget, half of the sky is blocked by the sun, so we get (5)/2 = 0.00164 is the number of stars we can expect to observe forming in the visible sky in the last 400 years

(7) Take the reciprocal of that:  we find it's less than one chance in 600 that a star would even form in the portion of the universe in the last 400 years that we would be able to see the event.

 

Now, consider the miniscule portion of the sky covered by major telescopes and the fact that all of the strongest telescopes were made in the last 100 years as well as the fact that the standard model has most of the star formation taking place in the distant past (far longer than 200,000 years in the past) and you will quickly see that chance drop down to one in tens of thousands.

 

In other words, the reason we have never seen the birth of as star is we shouldn't expect to have seen it.

 

 I always find it amusing when creationists here simply dismiss a fairly detailed analysis as "weak conjecture" or claim "I could address any one of his shallow thinking points" without addressing any of the issues raised. 


  • Goku likes this

#18 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 September 2015 - 10:41 AM

popoi:

 

No way to know. It could be legitimate scientific literature, it could be an anecdote they overheard at a party, or it could be taken from their freshman physics notes. At best, we're getting a second to third hand account of what the actual literature says.

 

 

You deliberately ignored my sources including NASA and the National Institute of Areospace. Therefore, after this post,  I am going to ignore you for the rest of this discussion. 

 

The astronomers in your sources seem to agree with the 100-400 range.

 

 

 

Proof of what I just said. You ignored my sources....the NIA astronomer gave us a 1 trillion figure. FIVE widely different guesses were made in my documentation.
 

Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it so.

 

The widely ranging views about the number of stars in the Milky Way among the cosmic evolutionists I quoted IS A FACT. Don't try to play mental games with me again, popoi.

 

It's only a matter of choosing at random who to believe if you don't want to put in the work necessary to actually evaluate those claims.

 

 

So which expert do you believe? Name him/her and why. Oh, but then I forgot.... :think: I asked you to tell us if the astronomers at NASA and the NIA had credibility but you conveniently ignored everything they said and I got no answer.

 

I don't think you're going to find anyone who says that science education should be a matter of finding a single source you can believe and sticking to it exclusively. Even if you did, the source they recommend almost certainly wouldn't be some science blog.

 

 

 

Can we believe Google Earth that the earth being a sphere is a fact?

 

The bio of the author of the first post you linked:

 

 

All right. You made one point.

 


no u

 

 

Is this an admission you have no university education?  :rolleyes: 

 

The only actual contradictions you pointed out were the science journalist saying all galaxies are moving away from each other, and the article that stated 100 and 300 billion without qualifying either.
 

 

 

 

Every single guess I quoted....100 billion...200 billion....300 billion...400 billion, and 1 trilion stars were all contradictory. Why don't you try reading more carefully and even more so why don't you even try to do some serious thinking about what you read? Furthermore, it is clear that you don't even have the mental depth to grasp that vast difference between a 1 billion and 2 billion star estimation...much less that between 1 billion and 1 trillion.

Qualify as what? I think they're correct about the current state of astronomy, specifically that we don't know for sure how many stars there are but we have estimates based on various techniques.

 

 

 

IT WAS YOUR QUESTION, fella. You complained that my sources didn't have much credibility as journalists or interns. etc. so I gave you those who DO have credibility (at least in your world). But even that would not convince you. See why I don't wish to keep discussing things with you?

I don't think for a second that if they did have a definite answer that you'd believe them.

 

 

If they could prove it I would. Just like I believe in the law of gravitational force, the size and velocity of the moon, the spherical nature of the earth, the distance to the Sun etc. So prove it and I will believe it. But you can't prove cosmic evolution because it doesn't exist and never did.



#19 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 September 2015 - 10:51 AM

Enoch, the only genuine faith IS BIBLICAL faith That is all I accept, all other definitions of faith come under "superficial, phoney pluralism", to my mind. The Buddhist and Muslim ARE the "natural man" the bible speaks of as their "faith" is phoney, so I am not sure why you point that out. What else would I mean since I am a Christian with biblical faith?

 

When I said we don't know what happened in the past, I wasn't including what we do know ( miraculous intelligent design) I was just talking about the particulars of how X formed. So for example, all I would mean is that I don't know how God formed a star, I did not see that. I will never know. Can I know if He created it on one second or two minutes or two hours? No - I can never know, all I see is that the only explanation is that He must have created it because it requires a miracle.

 

That's just one of the things about history - we can never know, but yes, I accept what God says happened but obviously I take that by faith in God, "for we live by faith not by sight". 

 

I think the point is, that like Jesus said, "you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe though they have not seen".

 

If we see we know, if we know we have proof and then faith is MOOT, IMHO.

 

Stop fighting baba, or he shall refute you! ;) :D Okay, we had some small disagreements in a couple of threads, but that doesn't mean you should hold a grudge, I let you have the last words didn't I? :)

 

I think Enoch knows this, Mike, but he was just trying to clarify things for our counterparts. I knew that is what you meant.

 

Best wishes and keep up the good work. God bless you, brother.



#20 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 September 2015 - 11:11 AM

Mike the wiz:

 

I can see how SUPERFICIALLY that might seem like a strong argument.  However, when one examines the situation and evaluates how likely it is that a star would form in the vicinity of Earth in the time frame we have had the technological capability to observe the event we find it is highly unlikely we should see a star birth.

 

Here's a calculation I did in the "Why Don't We See Stars 'Igniting'" discussion showing exactly why it is not surprising we have never observed a star birth:

 

 

 

 

Quite frankly, Mike, he's lying. 

 

Let me show you something:
 

Quote: "The known history of supernova observation goes back to 185 CE, when,supernova SN 185 appeared, the oldest appearance of a supernova recorded by humankind. Several additional supernovae within the Milky Way galaxy have been recorded since that time, with SN 1604 being the most recent supernova to be observed in this galaxy.[1]

Since the development of the telescope, the field of supernova discovery has expanded to other galaxies.(Wikipedia)

 

 fig3-s.jpg

 

http://wwwmpa.mpa-ga...mazzali-en.html

 

All those stars degenerating  and not a single observance of a new star being 'born' during the same time frame. 

 

This is strongly akin to the problem evolutionists have in organisms which have gone extinct (in the thousands as listed by the DNR and other sources) and yet not one organism has ever been observed to transform into another totally different class of organism OVER THE SAME TIME FRAME. So one would think that the mathematical law of probability would tell our counterparts that evolution is therefore a false one based on sheer math alone! But they only like math/physics when they can twist things to their own ends.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users