"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

Honk, Honk!Without resorting to Barry Setterfield's and the YEC’s odious ‘last-stage’ deceleration of the speed of light (which is comparable to the ToE’s odious ‘last-stage’ of man’s failure to beneficially ‘mutate’ anymore)‘Shortly’ after the initial 'Bang'/universal expansion, E=MC(squared)...
Simple relativistic physics must be shouted:
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS/ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME
(i.e., 1-4 creation days maximum for all the stars to appear -- you do the math).Thus, where did the ID’er ever violate relativistic physics, i.e., to "mislead" us with light-trails?
Why do both YECs and ToE’s continue with obsolete 'Newtonian physics’ and not realize that ‘(special-) relativity’ invalidates atomic time for ‘origin’ purposes?
(General relativity is also involved, but need not be cited yet, as we seem unable to swallow this 'strong meat')Note that radio-dating uses atomic time only and therefore has little to no bearing on time as we know it! Sorry to break the news that all radiometric clocks are thus invalid for ‘origin’ purposes! If ToE’s-R-US, I’m afraid we will need to redo the math, using geological and/or solar clocks, and not the stellar/atomic ones that have been erroneously used to measure light-years, Cambrian ages, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Here endeth the lesson...

---

Thanks Joz;
Correctomundo, I'm sorry; I phrased the equation wrong (I'm a clown):'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS OF ‘ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME(I did not mean this to be a division of atomic time; again sorry for the confusion)
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS/‘ATOMIC TIME' = 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIMEAgain, the correction for all to discuss: The theory of special relativity (E=mc(squared)) infers:
'EONS' OF 'LIGHT YEARS OF ‘ATOMIC TIME' ARE EQUIVALENT TO 'SECONDS' OF 'SOLAR' TIME after the 'Bang'

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
E = m.c² Is only applicable to a body at rest...
Anisotropy of CBR shows that we are moving at 370 Km.s^-1 relative to the universe...

​

(Of course thats just the Gamma for something at rest relative to the universe gamma for actual objects depends on their speed relative to us)....

​

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 05-12-2002]

---

--Thank you for your relativistic insight.--Now consider:--The first instant after the 'Bang', the initial speed of universal expansion (with negative acceleration forth-coming), would be great: perhaps the speed of light for the outer portions of the ‘primal’ universe (assuming an infinitely powerful ID that would account for nearly infinite mass effects in the universe’s outer circumference).--The gamma in this case would become incrementally great for those outer visible realms of the universe?--Now gamma would of course shrink rapidly once the natural laws of the universe commenced to rule (perhaps an instant or 2 later, I don’t know), i.e., the effects of gravity on mass. By the 4th solar day, all ‘stellar lengthening’ (from the earth’s perspective) may have shortened to become visible as stars are today.--Thus, the 2 clocks of time (atomic and solar) would be ‘set’ as significantly different at the ‘outset’ of the ‘Bang’ expansion.--Now if the initial outer universal expansion of the ‘Bang’ did not commence at (or very nearly at) the speed of light, the gamma effects would indeed be minute, and my relativistic hypothesis would be ‘forced’ and hoaxing.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
that stellar evolution, novas and supernovas, galatic collisions, asteroids and other debris and generally all galatic "violence" were evidence of the great universal sin permeating the Universe!

---

--All such universal darkness, emptiness, chaos, and galactic entropic forces (per se) look pretty ‘cursed’, to various degrees at least wouldn’t you think? A lot of damaged-worthless substrates out there, no? A lot of nothing and nothingness. Seems like a valid hypothesis, this universal ‘curse’.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
In other words it was not meant to be like that by God.

---

The creationist model is: ‘Creation-Curse-Restoration’; did you not hear that? Shraf mentioned what appeared as a ‘redeeming’ aspects of a ‘violent’ sun. I.e., the sun, a worthless lake of fire ‘provides’ benefit as well. Do you not see that, scientifically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
Is this an indication of what most creationist hold to be true, or...????

---

--Probably, yes.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-14-2002]

To Gene and all others:
--Note 'unpredictability' is a loaded term, filled with both ‘cursed’ and ‘redemptive’ connations. That vaporous molecules ‘unpredictably’ arrange to form air to breath is ‘redemptive’ (beneficial) to survival of most life-forms.--But would someone help Gene, here? We’re waiting.
--He seems to imply that God has no right to form a vessel of destruction. Help him someone, to find fault with this creation(ist) mechanism.
--Gene (and others), did you miss the ‘redemptive’ data supporting the nature of God as ‘redeemer’, too? If so, kindly visit the thread entitled Only Christian ID Makes Logical Sense?

[QUOTE][/b]
The nature of God as a redeemer is inconsistent with the nature of God as a childish curser of Creation...I think your concept of God is terribly flawed because most *people* seem to have a greater capacity for forgiveness than your version of the perfect being. When was the last time somebody got shot stealing fruit in your hometown? And if that happened, would the shooter go unpunished? I hope not. [/B][/QUOTE]--The nature of the ID is both ‘cursed’ and ‘redemptive’. Not only a naturalistic ‘curse’ upon all the creation, but biblically, a ‘cursing’ of his own Son it appears; for wretched ‘cursed’ sinners like you and I. A ‘hellish’ cursing for ‘demons’ for all time.--‘Redeeming’ data far exceeds the ‘cursed’ data to ‘forgive’ ‘cursed’ creatures like you and I. You appear to ‘regard’ ‘forgiveness’ as ‘evident’ in people, to be greater than the ‘forgiveness’ of the ID’er! Well what about this?: One man’s curse (Christ’s) is potentially every man’s redemption/forgiveness, eternally. Is that enough forgiveness for you and I? Might not the creation righteously sustain (and thus empirically reflect) what you perceive as ‘childish’ eternal cursing by an all-righteous Creator.--Next time I regard an AIDS victim, a drowned child (my own), victims of terrorism, etc., might I not observe the excellent ‘redemptive’ data to formulate a scientific theory of Salvation, based on these observation.--Who are you and I to scientifically go against the observed ‘cursed’ and ‘redemption’ data we’re both grappling with? If my nature of the ID is such that it childishly avenges ‘minor’ transgressions against an infinitely holy ID, than who am I (the molded clay) to say to the Maker that requires justice and punishment, You could have been less childish by punishing less these vessels of wrath?--Any other comments are welcome here.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-17-2002]