Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 301 (433621)
11-12-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:40 PM


Aquilegia writes:
I never said that 'It must be God,'. I think, however, that because galaxies are intact, the universe must be younger than 10,000 years.
Would you like to be specific? I'm a physicist, so I'm sure I'll be able to follow your technical explanation.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:40 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 38 of 301 (433677)
11-12-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:52 PM


Aquilegia753 writes:
Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds) along with the lack of neccesary mass to counter the effect with an equally strong gravitational pull towards the center means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years. Because they are still intact and still spinning, either the galaxies must have more mass, and therefore more gravity (the theoretical 'Dark Matter'), or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay.
As I suspected. This is a gross misunderstanding of astrophysics.
It's not just how fast the galaxies are spinning, it's the way they are spinning.
Let's assume for a moment that the galaxies are less than 10,000 years old and that most of them are just empty space (meaning all the visible matter that we can observe are all the matter there is). We would be observing galaxies to behave more or less like a planetary star system with the inner planets having much less angular speeds than the outer planets. If this was the case with how the galaxies are behaving, you would have a point.
But the galaxies are behaving more like solid objects than a planetary star system. The stars toward the outer edge have almost the same angular speeds than the stars toward the center. The only possible explanation for this behavior is if most of the matter that exist in the galaxies are nonvisible. We can certainly see their influence on the visible objects that we see, but we can't see what they are. Hence, we call them dark matter.
And where did you get the 10,000 years from? I still haven't figured that out yet.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 39 of 301 (433678)
11-12-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Aquilegia753 writes:
I never denied the 'old universe' theory. I actually strongly believe that God made all things mature. In doing that, he could have created a 'mature' universe. The rocks could appear to be billions of years old, but really be much younger. Adam could've appeared to have been 30, when he was not a day old.
In other words, god could have created the universe, the world, and all of us with all our memories of our childhoods last thursday?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:15 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 52 of 301 (433711)
11-12-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:20 PM


Re: brief nearly off-topic rant
Aquilegia753 writes:
Even so if God created the stars on that day, then the speed of light would have to be even greater!
Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:20 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 77 of 301 (433765)
11-12-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dwise1
11-12-2007 9:07 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Just use html.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 84 of 301 (433782)
11-12-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:41 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I'd like to remind you that this is a science forum. Your liberal use of biblical passages to prove a point is getting tiring.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:41 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:53 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 87 of 301 (433789)
11-12-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 9:53 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Aquilegia753 writes:
I know this is a science forum, but I happen to believe that the Bible is historical. That if you dug deep enough around the Sinai Peninsula, you'd find Egyptian war equipment. That you will never find the body of Jesus, because there is no body to be found. I believe that a huge flood did cover the earth and alter its formations. Because I believe this, I will use the Bible in my evidence whenever I feel like.
I'm sure the creationists who have been trying for years to dissociate creationism with religion appreciate what you are doing. I'm surprised none of the admins have waved their magic wand at you yet.
But more to the point, what you have essentially confessed right there is you will never believe anything science has to offer. In other words, there really is no point for you to debate your beliefs. Your mind is made up. This, I might add, is exactly the opposite of what the creationist and intelligent design movements are suppose to be about.
PS - You didn't reply to me about the way the galaxies are being held together. I just want to know if my explanation made any sense to you. If need be, I'll draw some diagrams to help you understand it better.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:53 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 10:10 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 111 of 301 (435016)
11-18-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dwise1
11-18-2007 2:38 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
dwise1 writes:
When will they ever learn?
See, the most valuable thing I learned while in college was the fact that there are vast amounts of information out there that I am not aware of. Having the know-it-all attitude would certainly make a fool out of me one of these days.
This is what people like Aquilegia753 need to learn. The more things I know, the more things I know I don't know. But instead of having this attitude, people like Aquilegia753 remember a few sentences from their physics text book and assume those few sentences represent the limits of human knowledge.
When I first read that supposed time distortion with the car honking thing he was talking about, I felt a sharp pain. I just find it astonishing that people could show such willful ignorance and contempt for true human knowledge while proclaiming to be speaking for an all-knowing god. But the really sad thing about all of this is Aquilegia will probably ignore RAZD's response after having read it and continue to believe that he knows all there is to it.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic rant, people.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2007 2:38 PM dwise1 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 301 (436487)
11-26-2007 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Dr Adequate
11-26-2007 12:52 AM


I've always wondered about the misconception of motion. My common sense at least have always told me that objects never go in a curve unless there's something acting upon it. When a child is swung off of a merry go round, she doesn't continue to go in a curve. She goes off in a straight line. I don't understand where people get the idea that objects continue to go in a curved line if it is originally pushed that way.
When I was in 4th grade (mind you I went to a religiou school back then), my science teacher told demonstrated once to us how the planets are kept in orbit. He had a kid held his hand really tight and he ordered him to try to go in a straight path. With my teacher holding onto him tightly, he ended up going in a circle around my teacher. Ok, that was somewhat of an oversimplified notion of planetary motion, but it was the right path. My teacher then let go of that kid and he continued on in a straight line.
In other words, objects going in a straight line unless outside force acted upon it became common sense to me in 4th grade. And it was a christian school I went to, not a public school. How on Earth can people go through life totally clueless about newton's 3 laws of motion? I mean, all they have to do is try to roll a ball in a curve path. It's not like they need a state of the art laboratory to perform such an experiment.
Oh, and did I mention I got all 9... um 8 of the planets' names memorized in 4th grade? In order from the sun out: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Plu... and Neptune.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 12:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 1:18 AM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 151 of 301 (436581)
11-26-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
11-26-2007 1:18 AM


Dr A writes:
"Mark's violet eyes make Jane sit up nights pining."
How are you at geological periods?
"Cows often sit down carefully, perhaps their joints creak."
It would be easier if so many of them didn't begin with C.
Now that you have been unsuspended, what the flying squirrel are you talking about?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 1:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2007 4:55 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 154 of 301 (436586)
11-26-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by PaulK
11-26-2007 4:55 PM


OMG, that's clever!

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2007 4:55 PM PaulK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024