The attraction of matter to other matter due to electrical charges of particles produces spheres which are mathematically the most perfect shapes that produce orderly gravitational and electrical fields which attract more matter.
Gravity of mass
Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
The attraction of matter to other matter due to electrical charges of particles produces spheres which are mathematically the most perfect shapes that produce orderly gravitational and electrical fields which attract more matter.
Gravity of mass
Matter that we consider solid is still mostly empty on a molecular level and we and the universe could be slowly growing relatively smaller to the space around our atoms and molecules. Just a guess
The universe has a fractal geometry and fractal geometric equations are very simple but infinite.
Fractal Geometry has been called The Thumbprint of God.
This would explain the elegance.
It was only really discovered in 1980 with the advent of modern computers.
As Jewish mathematician Benoit Mandelbrott said about the greatest discovery in mathematics of the late 20th century in the 1994 Colors of Infinity
Amazon.com: The Colours of Infinity: The Beauty, The Power and the Sense of Fractals (9781904555056): Nigel Lesmoir-Gordon: Books
And Fractal Geometry science is young
Watch this intro
YouTube - Arthur Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity 1 of 6
Fractal Geometry has been called The Thumbprint of God.
This would explain the elegance.
It was only really discovered in 1980 with the advent of modern computers.
As Jewish mathematician Benoit Mandelbrott said about the greatest discovery in mathematics of the late 20th century in the 1994 Colors of Infinity
Amazon.com: The Colours of Infinity: The Beauty, The Power and the Sense of Fractals (9781904555056): Nigel Lesmoir-Gordon: Books
And Fractal Geometry science is young
Watch this intro
YouTube - Arthur Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity 1 of 6
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
We agreed not to copy/paste walls of text from various sites.
Furthermore, you're spamming the thread now.
You aren't arguing in good faith - your only purpose here is to annoy.
I'll answer your multitude of posts, but then I'm done.
Furthermore, you're spamming the thread now.
You aren't arguing in good faith - your only purpose here is to annoy.
I'll answer your multitude of posts, but then I'm done.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Evidence?
Zero.
And your evidence for this is...?
Zero.
Thanks for agreeing that there's no science for these assertions.
And your evidence for these wild assumptions is...?
Zero.
You really don't understand the Big Bang model itself, which clearly depends on matter traveling faster than the speed of light.
Evidence?
Zero.
Yes, it's just a guess just like everything else the evolutionists assert. And you have the gall to ridicule evangelicals? :bowrofl:Matter that we consider solid is still mostly empty on a molecular level and we and the universe could be slowly growing relatively smaller to the space around our atoms and molecules. Just a guess
No, your point is that since the problem hasn't been solved, you somehow get to claim that Creation is therefore disproved - which is an unscientific, childish, SELF-REFUTING argument.
FAIL.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't post up more copy and paste than you did initially and I responded to many of your points.
I told you I was busy yesteday.
Colors of Infinity is very interesting and has some bearing on the universe.
you guys got a ways to go as your side has admitted.
Oh boo foss.
You're the one being childish and a poor sport..
I've posted in good faith but you get dour.
Scientists recently generated some small amount of antimatter for less than a second but in a measurable amount.
Antimatter exists.
Well it's not proved either and somewhere there it relies on the supernatural for the benefit of the doubt to fill in it's holes.
I was just looking at it from an alternate point of view.
Maybe us and all the matter in the universe is getting smaller while the space is the same.
It's called an idea.
You should view colors of infinity.
In this presentation it can come across as an epiphany.
On Youtube it's for free vhs rip in 6 parts but the visuals are still fabulous.
When they scroll the colors in motion with the equations
and pink floyd music it's an incredibly awesome experience.
And it has some bearing on creation.
It's not called thumbprint of god for nothing.
Fractal Geometry is the geometry of nature and therefore the geometry of creation.
So out of the 7 competing Creationisms
I didn't know there were so many until I did some research.
Young Earth
Old Earth
Gap
Day Age
Progressive
Intelligent Design
Neo Creationist
which one are you foss.
I didn't know there were so many until I did some research.
Young Earth
Old Earth
Gap
Day Age
Progressive
Intelligent Design
Neo Creationist
which one are you foss.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
As I've said, you clearly aren't interested in a real debate. I've given you plenty of scientific arguments and you've responded with nothing but ridicule and/or rambling, incoherent one-liners. Let me know when you have some actual science to offer.
I've responded to your copy and paste points with my own thoughts
in a manner appropriate for this forum but you're not graceful when challenged by things you haven't read somehere and find incoherent I guess
You're a poor sport and a sore loser.
You still haven't told me what you think your points are only what other people think.
I presume you're a young earther since you won't even gracefully admit to the light speed problem, you can only counter with a supernatural God event
aging billions of years in a few days in a small part of space to explain the old sky.
funny, i've yet to see evidence in favour of your arguement.
you merely dismiss scientific arguement.
we see supernovas across the universe. their light has taken whatever billions of years to reach us, as the explosion, let alone the life of the star itself.
http://www.lbl.gov/supernova/albinoni.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/oldest-1a-supernova.html
this itself is enough to dismiss a short life creation. (not creation, but young creation).
now, other than just dismissal, do you have an explanation that would fit your young earth creation for these phenomenon?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That doesn't address my argument. Go back and read it. Currently you're just re-stating the starlight problem.
Got any responses to any of my other arguments?
get your head out of the anti scientific arguement.
even under a creation ideal, the speed of light is still what it is. these supernova are stellar explosions, ocurring across the universe. they are not obviously being seen in real time. the light takes time to travel.
or, are you saying the universe isn't as big as it is?
shouldn't be older than 4000 years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp
oh, and the distant starlight problem is not one of science. it is a problem for young earth creation. and has no substantial arguement to overcome it.
while russel humphreys has an arguement to try and explain it, it has nothing to substantiate it.
perhaps you should have mentioned humphrey's is a creationist author as well.
another humphrey's idea. even he set's an upper limit of 62 MILLION years. far outdating 6000 years.
actually, heres an article about a lecture of his.
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
and an over view of his ideals.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/oldwebsite/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=34&page=1
maybe you'd like to stop fossten, until your source for misinformation can actually substantiate anything he claims.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you sure that the speed of light is constant, and hasn't slowed down? Think carefully before you answer.
Straw man. You are being dishonest when you use that statistic. "Upper limit" means what it means. Humphreys is using that data to show that the BB model is wrong, not to prove Creation is true. And anyway, your argument is self-refuting. If you accept his numbers, then evolution per the Big Bang model ceases to exist. You can't have it both ways.
Oh, it's an even bigger problem for you. But I'll wait as you try to overcome it yourself.
The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound.
1. The Constancy of the Speed of Light
2. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time
3. Assumptions of Synchronization
4. The Assumption of Naturalism
Want to discuss these?
Ad hominem - logically flawed argument. Humphreys is a scientist. Can I attack any of your 'sources' by claiming that they're 'evolutionist' authors?
I'm still waiting for you, or anybody like you, to present the FIRST piece of evidence that substantiates evolution.
I've presented scads of evidence that supports creation. You're playing the 'exception disproves the rule' game by using Alinsky tactics to 'pick the target, freeze it, polarize it.' The fact is that the preponderance of evidence supports a young earth, and it's only logical to conclude that the starlight issue, while a puzzle, is less a problem for Creationists than it is for evolutionists.
Until you can respond intelligently to the above paragraph, you're just whistling past the graveyard. Frankly, I find it fascinating that you have to resort to googling stuff that you THINK refutes my positions, yet you really don't know what you're talking about. In fact, what you're doing violates the rules of this debate, and I expect Cal to start editing your posts.
If the universe is so old, why aren't there more supernovas?
Written records only go back about 4 – 5,000 years. But, allegedly, prehistoric man built monuments, painted beautifully, and recorded the lunar phases. Did he really live for 100,000 years before figuring out how to write?
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
All you've done in this thread is perpetuate your casual dismissal and ridicule of creationism.I've responded to your copy and paste points with my own thoughts
in a manner appropriate for this forum but you're not graceful when challenged by things you haven't read somehere and find incoherent I guess
You're a poor sport and a sore loser.
You still haven't told me what you think your points are only what other people think.
I presume you're a young earther since you won't even gracefully admit to the light speed problem, you can only counter with a supernatural God event
aging billions of years in a few days in a small part of space to explain the old sky.
You've failed to bring up any real evidence to support your side, and you've failed to disprove anything. You ignore all the evidence I've presented and focus tunnelvision-like on one issue that you yourself can't explain, nor can you use it without being SELF-REFUTING. But when I point that out, you dismiss it and reboot, repeating your talking points again like a proof by assertion bot.
It's amusing that you consider this a 'victory'.
I'm not interested in convincing YOU, as you are rigidly set against being 'defeated' in a debate. But the lurkers are watching, and they can see that you're not engaging in debate, and they can see the evidence that I've presented and the paucity of your evidence.
It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.
It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, you are engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when you use the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale.
Again, where is your case for evolution?
it's not a straw man it shows even he comes up with ridiculous dates, then states that the lowest must be used since it's the only acceptable date, meaning it fits the young earth ideal.
your source for this info?
Last edited by a moderator:
you mean monuments like stonehenge, etc, with no society around capable of leaving written records? stonehenge is an example of this. there are also many other south/north american civilizations who never rose to a written language or record keeping ability. it's not doubtful.
edit. also many traces of stoneage people, who have left no written record anywhere of themselves. not all prehistoric man built monuments.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Speculation is not evidence, but thanks for playing. How is it that the earlier pyramids are better than the subsequent models?
Archeological evidence indicates that agriculture is only about 10,000 years old. But other evidence indicates that stone age people were certainly as creative and intelligent as modern man. Is it reasonable that intelligent people would not have discovered for 100,000 years that seeds grow into food?
Evolutionists claim that Cro-magnon and Neanderthal men populated the “stone age” for at least 100,000 years. The world population was allegedly a few million during this period. These people buried their dead, which would demand a total of billions of skeletons. But only a few thousand have been found. Perhaps the stone age was only a few hundred years – after Noah’s flood.
The evidence – looked at honestly – would lead one to believe that the universe has been here just a short time. If you are confident that the time scales are huge, then your confidence derives from a deep faith in evolution, which is based on the weakest of speculations, which in turn are unsupported by both reason and mathematics.
Yes it is. What difference does it make to a Creationist whether or not the Earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old? But if the universe is only 50 million years old, Big Bang theory goes kablooey.
Ever heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
Many people mistakenly think that Einstein’s theory demands that the speed of light has not changed in time. In reality, this is not the case. Relativity only requires that two different observers would measure the same velocity for a beam of light, even if they are moving relative to each other.
You're out of your league here.
You're a big boy - do your own research. If you want to learn something, let me know. I'm not going to play silly ad hominem games with you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well then we're both getting something out of this.
I'm pointing out an flaw in your belief of a young earth that is so obvious a fifth grader could understand it.
Look at all the dust you are throwing up over a simple point
before even addressing it.
All you really are saying is well God can do this and God maybe did that, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
I enjoy debating but you know I consider religion of some use but mostly nonsense.
The lurkers can judge your "evidence" for what it is but ultimately it comes down to faith, wanting to believe.
Creationism was concieved with an agenda whereas evolution is merely based on observations.
There seem to be 7 or 8 versions of Creationism but only one general theory of evolution.
Even the Creationists are confused about what they believe.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're pointing out a puzzle, not a flaw - and yet you don't even understand that you're using a SELF-REFUTING ARGUMENT. I'm still waiting for this to dawn on you.
No, that's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I'm using scientific arguments, you're blathering. The fact that you haven't been able or willing to answer even ONE of my points speaks volumes.
It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.
Which is why you blindly cling to evolution without even bothering to research it for 5 minutes. Got it.
It takes more faith to believe that we came from apes, and the universe formed by luck and from nothing, than it does to believe that we're created beings who are accountable for our behavior.
I've presented quite a bit of scientific evidence, ALL OF WHICH YOU'VE IGNORED in your quest to perpetuate your lame, vapid talking points.
Incorrect. Please share with me what you have OBSERVED that proves evolution.
Incorrect again. There are many forms of evolutionary belief - and I'm sure you cannot name them all. Are you thinking of Darwinian evolution, or are you talking about the theories espoused by Kant, Linnaeus, Lamarck, Malthus, Wallace, or Huxley?
You're making a wild generalization with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'm a Creationist and I'm not the least bit confused. You're the one with the preconceived notions, who incorrectly believes there aren't any competing theories of evolution.
You're proud of your belief, and yet you're unwilling to debate the science surrounding it, choosing rather to mock and make fun of Christianity.
You've exposed yourself in this thread as being non-inquisitive, ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and scientifically shallow.
When you look at these passages you see dinosaurs.
I see the same kind of creatures we have today in these descriptions.
Serpents(snakes) behemoths(elephants) and large sea creatures(whales sharks octopus) and creatures seen in popular mythology do not dinosaurs make in my view.
And dinosaurs were quite abundant in their day and ruled their habitats.
How come no mention of this in the Bible other than a few nebulous monsters if there was interaction between people and dinosaurs.
Vague enough for a Good effort though
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
There you go, moving the goalposts. And with a side order of condescension to boot! You're winning hearts and minds today, eh Scuttles?When you look at these passages you see dinosaurs.
I see the same kind of creatures we have today in these descriptions.
Serpents(snakes) behemoths(elephants) and large sea creatures(whales sharks octopus) and creatures seen in popular mythology do not dinosaurs make in my view.
And dinosaurs were quite abundant in their day and ruled their habitats.
How come no mention of this in the Bible other than a few nebulous monsters if there was interaction between people and dinosaurs.
Vague enough for a Good effort though
Sorry, you can't claim the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs and then deny the verses in Genesis OR the verse that describes behemoth. The Genesis verses say 'EVERY' beast.
Does an elephant have a tail like a cedar tree? :bowrofl:
Again, you're full of speculation, but no evidence.
Not to mention the fossils that show man and dinosaurs together.
Furthermore, there's evidence that man encountered dinosaurs in the last 4000 years.
Again, where is your case for evolution?
First you have the young earth old sky puzzle to solve and now you want to bring dinosaurs which died in a mass extinction 65 million years ago into biblical times.
Wouldn't more fresher dinosaur carcases and bones be around if this was the case not to mention writings of their extinction anywhere in world history in other cultures and peoples.
It seems like a lot to swallow.
Wouldn't more fresher dinosaur carcases and bones be around if this was the case not to mention writings of their extinction anywhere in world history in other cultures and peoples.
It seems like a lot to swallow.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Since you've been attacking me incessantly from the beginning of this thread, I think it's only fair for you to answer a question:
Spiral galaxies present a real mystery to evolutionary cosmologists. Stars closer to the center of a galaxy orbit around the center faster than those at the extremities. The same gravitational dynamics govern satellites in orbit around the earth and planets around the sun. For spiral galaxies, this leads to the “winding-up dilemma.” If any spiral were more than a few hundred million years old, it would “wind up” and look like a uniform disk. For example: A typical period of galactic rotation is 100 million years. In a lifetime of 10 billion years, 100 rotations would occur. No spiral structure could survive that! Lots of theories have been built and discarded over the last 50 years, but none have survived careful examination. An additional problem is that the orbital velocities don’t fit the right profile, given reasonable assumptions for the mass of a given galaxy, based on the number of observed stars. This problem increases the stability issue for an age of billions of years.
How do you explain this, using science as your guide?
Spiral galaxies present a real mystery to evolutionary cosmologists. Stars closer to the center of a galaxy orbit around the center faster than those at the extremities. The same gravitational dynamics govern satellites in orbit around the earth and planets around the sun. For spiral galaxies, this leads to the “winding-up dilemma.” If any spiral were more than a few hundred million years old, it would “wind up” and look like a uniform disk. For example: A typical period of galactic rotation is 100 million years. In a lifetime of 10 billion years, 100 rotations would occur. No spiral structure could survive that! Lots of theories have been built and discarded over the last 50 years, but none have survived careful examination. An additional problem is that the orbital velocities don’t fit the right profile, given reasonable assumptions for the mass of a given galaxy, based on the number of observed stars. This problem increases the stability issue for an age of billions of years.
How do you explain this, using science as your guide?