Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

[fossten]

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.

Since you're just randomly throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks, I feel entitled to use a bit of copy/paste to answer your query.

Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs#fnList_1_26 Also, there should not be “fresh” bones if they were really millions of years old.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs#fnList_1_27 A report by these scientists stated the following:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ... . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ... . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ... . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ... . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ... . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs#fnList_1_28​

Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs#fnList_1_29 Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs#fnList_1_30 Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory). Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized. This is a puzzle to those who believe in an “age of dinosaurs” millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible.

***

* A Sumerian story dating back to 2000 BC or earlier tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon that he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.
* When Alexander the Great (c. 330 BC) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.
* China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery, and carvings.
* England and several other cultures retain the story of St. George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
* There is the story of a tenth-century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.
* In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several living animals that we would call dinosaurs. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.

Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaurlike creatures have also been found.

 

[04SCTLS]

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?

Well I'm not a learned physicist but the only thing I can think of is that there is some process at the center of a spiral galaxy generating a counterforce that keeps if from spiraling upon itself eventually but we haven't discovered it yet.
Some kind of backspin.

 

[fossten]

Well I'm not a learned physicist but the only thing I can think of is that there is some process at the center of a spiral galaxy generating a force that keeps if from spiraling upon itself eventually but we haven't discovered it yet.
Some kind of backspin.

A process? A force? You mean like in Star Wars? You're resorting to fairy tales now?

Be careful, you might accidentally stumble over God.

Sounds like a wild theory that you just made up.

Got any evidence?

 

[fossten]

How about this, then, since you're not a 'learned physicist'...

The simplest conceivable cell – the smallest possible self-replicating organism – is immeasurably more complex than the most sophisticated designs of human science and engineering.

To the high school student, looking at a cell through a microscope may not be very awe-inspiring. At modest magnifications, the cell looks like an ill-shaped blob containing blobby structures.

How did the first cell arise from the molecular soup assumed to exist on the early planet earth? Oparin’s 1924 book, The Origin of Life, painted a picture of oily droplets acting like cell walls, an accumulation of complex molecules inside, until there was just the right amount and type of compounds to allow self-sustainment and replication. The details were fuzzy, of course. Clearly, Oparin wasn’t aware of the structure of DNA or of the level of complexity involved in cellular function that was discovered later in the century.

According to evolutionary physicist Freeman Dyson: “The Oparin picture was generally accepted by biologists for half a century. It was popular not because there was any evidence to support it, but rather because it seemed to be the only alternative to biblical creationism.”

What an amazing admission! This is science? We must embrace a theory apart from evidence, simply because we cannot stomach the possibility of a non-materialistic answer?

Who invented their theory as an alternative again?

 

[04SCTLS]

Since you're just randomly throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks, I feel entitled to use a bit of copy/paste to answer your query.

Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. Also, there should not be “fresh” bones if they were really millions of years old. A report by these scientists stated the following:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ... . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ... . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ... . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ... . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ... . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”
​

Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska. Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska. Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory). Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized. This is a puzzle to those who believe in an “age of dinosaurs” millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible.

***

* A Sumerian story dating back to 2000 BC or earlier tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon that he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.
* When Alexander the Great (c. 330 BC) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.
* China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery, and carvings.
* England and several other cultures retain the story of St. George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
* There is the story of a tenth-century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.
* In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several living animals that we would call dinosaurs. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.

Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaurlike creatures have also been found.

If these creatures are as recent as this suggests there should be more stories of interactions and their extinction in the world history story.
There should have been more dinosaurs than what is suggested here.
How come the ancient greek persian egyptian and roman cultures never harnessed any of these animals or talked much about them in any real way.

And with my tongue firmly in cheek
Maybe the dinosaurs secretly helped build the pyramids seeing as they would have the stength to haul heavy stone if harnessed

 

[fossten]

If these creatures are as recent as this suggests there should be more stories of interactions and their extinction in the world history story.
There should have been more dinosaurs than what is suggested here.
How come the ancient greek persian egyptian and roman cultures never harnessed any of these animals or talked much about them in any real way.

And with my tongue firmly in cheek
Maybe the dinosaurs secretly helped build the pyramids seeing as they would have the stength to haul heavy stone if harnessed

Keep moving those goalposts, Scuttles. I noticed you sidestepped the very obvious EVIDENCE of the FRESH DINOSAUR BONES that you claimed shouldn't exist.

Is that all you've got, logical fallacies, denial, and pathetic mockery?

But since you're into claiming that there should be MORE dinosaurs, how about this?

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.

 

[04SCTLS]

A process? A force? You mean like in Star Wars? You're resorting to fairy tales now?

Be careful, you might accidentally stumble over God.

Sounds like a wild theory that you just made up.

Got any evidence?

I should have said rotational counterforce.
You say that a rotation of a spiral will cause it to become a disc eventually and I'm saying that by applying a small counterrotational force in a steady pluse in a high frequency for instance while keeping the dominant rotational force would keep the spirals from closing in on themselves by countercacting the force causing them to close.

It's like winding something up then backing off slightly before winding it more in a very quick manner over and over.
Some kind of wave that keeps the spiral set at a certain distance if you follow.
This is not something that is hard to understand (at least on a simple scale).
If you turn something in a bowl into a spin and then apply some resistance with a paddle, the liquid moves back out to the edges.
Or interfering with the rotation of a flushing old style toilet is easy to undertand.

 

[fossten]

I should have said rotational counterforce.
You say that a rotation of a spiral will cause it to become a disc eventually and I'm saying that by applying a small counterrotational force in a steady pluse in a high frequency for instance while keeping the dominant rotational force would keep the spirals from closing in on themselves by countercacting the force causing them to close.

It's like winding something up then backing off slightly before winding it more in a very quick manner over and over.
Some kind of wave that keeps the spiral set at a certain distance if you follow.
This is not something that is hard to understand (at least on a simple scale).
If you turn something in a bowl into a spin and then apply some resistance with a paddle, the liquid moves back out to the edges.
Or interfering with the rotation of a flushing old style toilet is easy to undertand.

What's applying the force? God? Zeus? Mighty Mouse? What size paddle is being used?

Everything you just said depends TOTALLY on assumptions for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You're equating the rotation of galaxies to a flushing toilet.

And you think Creationism is absurd - you're just making stuff up out of thin air to explain away the evidence for a young galaxy.

At least I have evidence to back up my claims.

To follow your logic, I can now claim victory because I've disproved the Big Bang model due to your inability to answer the galaxy rotation problem to my satisfaction.

 

[hrmwrm]

Ever heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

why don't you point out exactly where that is true.
then maybe have a read here.
http://www.fsteiger.com/light.html

there is nothing but a few highly speculative theories that state the speed of light has ever changed, much less can change.
and even the speculative theories don't have it changing to such a degree that would lead to your speculation of a young earth. even if the speed slowing down turns out to be correct, it in no way accounts for billions of years in discrepency.

 

[hrmwrm]

i guess in all this you are talking of setterfields claims. i'm going to c/p for speed.

During the last 300 years, at least 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published. Sixteen different measurement techniques were used. Astronomer Barry Setterfield of Australia has studied these measurements, especially their precision and experimental errors. His results show that the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error cannot explain it! In the seven instances where the same scientists measured the speed of light with the same equipment years later, a decrease was always reported.

sounds convincing, but

The CSC is one of the worst creation science organizations for perpetuating obsolete hoaxes. In the above example, Doc Brown breathlessly tells us that his fellow young-Earth creationist, Barry Setterfield, discovered 164 separate measurements that showed the speed of light slowing down over the past 300 years.

Before accepting that claim outright, I’m surprised most creationists don’t pause for a little cautious forethought. Common sense suggests that 17th-century physicists didn’t have modern equipment to measure such phenomena. Instead, these early scientists relied upon hopelessly out-of-date methods and apparatuses.

But worse, Setterfield’s figures are also dead wrong! He says that Roemer in 1675 and Bradley in 1728 measured the speed of light at 301,300 and 301,000 kilometers per second, respectively. Yet the real historical figures were, in fact, Roemer at 214,300 kilometers per second and Bradley at 295,000 kilometers per second.

Had Setterfield reported these accurate figures, originally, he could have demonstrated that the speed of light increased over the past 300 years, instead! Did Setterfield deliberately misrepresent his data, or did he make an honest mistake?

It’s true that scientists reported inconsistent rates throughout history, but between 1927 and 1960, the fastest and slowest rates were off by only one part in ten thousand. The figures showed a slight decrease in speed between 1927 to 1935, remained roughly constant between 1935 to 1950, and then slightly increased between 1950 and 1960.Does that mean the speed of light alternately sped up and slowed down over three decades? Or, as is more likely, did the experimental processes improve over time?

And today, the speed of light has remained unchanged since 1960. Is Barry Setterfield trying to tell us that the speed of light steadily deteriorated from “The Fall” until 1927, wavered up and down for thirty-three years, and then progressed at a fixed, constant rate from 1960 until today? Is Setterfield promoting weird science or magical apologetics?

and maybe you'd like to show how all this different speed of light culminates in a young earth. where's your proof. otherwise , it's an irrelevent red herring.

 

[fossten]

why don't you point out exactly where that is true.
then maybe have a read here.
http://www.fsteiger.com/light.html

there is nothing but a few highly speculative theories that state the speed of light has ever changed, much less can change.
and even the speculative theories don't have it changing to such a degree that would lead to your speculation of a young earth. even if the speed slowing down turns out to be correct, it in no way accounts for billions of years in discrepency.
but thanks for trying.

Your entire argument is SELF-REFUTING, but thanks for trying. Until you acknowledge that, we have no more to discuss. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who won't do so honestly. I can only assume that you are DODGING the point because you know that you have no answer for it.

Furthermore, 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, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale.

Again, what is your case for evolution?

i guess in all this you are talking of setterfields claims. i'm going to c/p for speed.

sounds convincing, but

and maybe you'd like to show how all this different speed of light culminates in a young earth. where's your proof. otherwise , it's an irrelevent red herring.

Not really sure which post you're replying to here, but no, I wasn't referring to Setterfield's claims. You do resort to straw men a lot.

Sounds like a bunch of speculation without evidence, mixed with a bit of ad hominem on your part. If you're going to c/p, you are supposed to cite your source. Regardless, that assumption HAS to be true for your argument to be correct. You haven't PROVEN it to be true. The only thing you've proven is that you've mastered the art of copy/paste, but failed to learn how to cite.

Still waiting for you to respond to the rest of my points. I guess you're not interested or you're not knowledgeable enough.

 

[04SCTLS]

What's applying the force? God? Zeus? Mighty Mouse? What size paddle is being used?

Everything you just said depends TOTALLY on assumptions for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You're equating the rotation of galaxies to a flushing toilet.

And you think Creationism is absurd - you're just making stuff up out of thin air to explain away the evidence for a young galaxy.

At least I have evidence to back up my claims.

To follow your logic, I can now claim victory because I've disproved the Big Bang model due to your inability to answer the galaxy rotation problem to my satisfaction.

The properties of rotation apply no matter the size of the rotated.
I'm just offering a possible reasonable explanation that would fit the problem.
Proof of this is something that would have to be pursued but it's a starting point.

 

[fossten]

The properties of rotation apply no matter the size of the rotated.
I'm just offering an reasonable explanation that would fit the problem.
Proof of this is something that would have to be pursued but it's a starting point.

Do you even know how much energy it would take to stop the movement of one single star, let alone an entire galaxy, not including reversing its spin? It would take something supernat- oh, wait...

And you think God doing this would be unreasonable, but some OTHER force is reasonable? Sounds like you're in denial.

What guarantees that the stars stay organized in the correct order once you've introduced this "mythical" paddle?

I'm not asking for proof, just any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim.

This latest wild idea of yours is nothing but blind speculation invented on the spot to try to explain away a glaring hole in your theory about the age of the universe.

 

[04SCTLS]

Do you even know how much energy it would take to stop the movement of one single star, let alone an entire galaxy, not including reversing its spin? It would take something supernat- oh, wait...

And you think God doing this would be unreasonable, but some OTHER force is reasonable? Sounds like you're in denial.

What guarantees that the stars stay organized in the correct order once you've introduced this "mythical" paddle?

I'm not asking for proof, just any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim.

This latest wild idea of yours is nothing but blind speculation invented on the spot to try to explain away a glaring hole in your theory about the age of the universe.

We're not talking about stopping spin just slightly modulating it.
This force would be much smaller than the general force of the rotating universe.

You asked me to consider the spiral problem and I have offered some sort of answer that is more than just "it's a mystery".

 

[fossten]

We're not talking about stopping spin just slightly modulating it.
This force would be much smaller than the general force of the rotating universe.

You asked me to consider the spiral problem and I have offered some sort of answer that is more than just "it's a mystery".

"Some sort" of answer that's devoid of evidence and is nothing but pure speculation. You might as well speculate that God created the universe.

"It" isn't a 'thing' - it's millions of independent stars. Talk about an oversimplification.

Remember, YOU are the one who said that I believe in fairy tales while evolution is based on OBSERVATION.

What have you observed that supports this wild idea? It's the evolutionists that are forced to make things up to 'support' their theories.

But there's another hole in your theory...

Globular clusters found near our galaxy contain hundreds of thousands of stars. Some are moving rapidly away from our galaxy, and definitely not in orbit around it. They will depart the vicinity in just a few million years. But then how could they have existed in proximity to the Milky Way for the last 10 billion years? And how can it be that their spherical symmetry hasn’t been distorted by the galaxy’s gravitational field in all that time? It’s also been noted that there isn’t much gas within a large number of clusters – but the “solar wind” from each star in a cluster should have been spewing gas into its vicinity for billions of years!

Groups of galaxies produce the same dilemma. Individual galaxies move too fast to be contained within their group for long. Backtracking the trajectories implies that they were “together” not so long ago.

So basically, you're counting on a 'paddle' that stopped and reversed the spinning of galaxies, but you failed to consider another 'FORCE' that suddenly started moving galaxies away from us.

 

[hrmwrm]

Your entire argument is SELF-REFUTING,

well, no it's not.
i'll ask again. your evidence for your claims comes from?

2. Zircons in granite
3. Spiral galaxies spinning too fast
4. Globular star clusters moving away from us
5. Galaxies moving away from us
6. Comets should have burned up by now
7. Not enough supernovas
8. Not enough sodium in the sea
9. Not enough mud in the sea
10. The earth's magnetic field
11. Geologic strata bent without cracking
12. Not enough Cro-magnon skeletons buried
13. Stone age people should have discovered seeds grow into food
14. Oldest pyramid and written records go back only 4-5,000 years

where is your verification for these statements.

 

[hrmwrm]

Sounds like a bunch of speculation without evidence

,
that is exactly what setterfield was doing and others since. they have no correlation that light was ever fast enough for what they postulate, nor that it ever has been faster.
kinda like russ humphreys. bad/falsified science doesn't make a good basis to start your theories.

 

[fossten]

well, no it's not.

Yes it is. The speed of light problem hurts the Big Bang theory. But keep using it, it amuses me. Tell me, can you explain the uniformity of temperature problem with the Big Bang model? You do realize that the BBM is impossible, right?

where is your verification for these statements.

Science. It's common knowledge. Go look it up, you seem to like googling things. I'm not going to do busywork for you, as I realize you're not interested in having an honest debate. Maybe if you'd answer the points I've already made...but we know you can't do that.

 

[fossten]

,
that is exactly what setterfield was doing and others since. they have no correlation that light was ever fast enough for what they postulate, nor that it ever has been faster.
kinda like russ humphreys. bad/falsified science doesn't make a good basis to start your theories.

"They have no correlation that light was ever fast..."what? Is that even a sentence? Because it's incoherent. I thoroughly enjoy watching somebody who doesn't even understand English trying to act like he knows the first thing about science.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The preponderance of evidence points to a young earth. It's only scientifically logical to search for a theory that coincides with the rest of the evidence - unlike your evolutionary 'scientists' who just make things up out of thin air (like dark matter). I also find it interesting that you blithely ignore the abject denial that your vaunted evolutionary 'scientists' are in. They have zero evidence whatsoever to support their theories. Everything they postulate is complete speculation. You have yet to supply any evidence to support your claims in this entire thread.

Furthermore, you have nothing but pathetic copy/paste attacks to try to discredit Humphreys, (stuff you don't even understand) which he's already answered. You might not agree with his conclusions, but you can't criticize his work without doing some MAJOR study on physics, and you don't have that knowledge. So you're dependent on c/p'ing the writings of others, which Humphreys has already dealt with.

I'm still waiting for you to answer all of my points.

Where is your evidence for evolution? How many times have I asked this question so far and gotten no answer? It's clear you have no knowledge of the science behind either Creationism or Evolution, and that your entire purpose for being in this thread is to nitpick.

It's really very simple, HermWorm. Make your case, and stick to scientific arguments, or I'm done with ya.

 

[04SCTLS]

Foss you and I should agree that we will disagree on this topic.
You cannot accept that that the universe was not created by random
and had to have a designer
but I cannot accept that it was created in the way as told in Genesis by the God of the Old Testament and that the earth and heavens are 6000-10,000 years old.

If the earth was created by God then he would have already been around forever and could have waited 4.5 billion years to create the earth because what is time to God.

First you have the starlight puzzle then dinosaurs which should have been more common and had some world history written about them if they were around in ancient biblical times to work around.

Then you have the bigger more comical self reputing argument.
You want to have it both ways.
You say the heaven and earth is 6000-10,000 years old but want us to overlook the faux pa of old starlight and you talking in millions and billions(Carl Sagen billions and billions)of years when that would be before time
under your definition.

You can keep throwing infinite puzzles at me if I speculate on the how of something without answering your why.
If I could answer the why I'd have the Nobel Prize.

I'm not attacking God or Jesus just pointing out the inherent contradictions in your position as I see it.
It has been interesting arguing with you though.

 

[fossten]

Foss you and I should agree that we will disagree on this topic.
You cannot accept that that the universe was not created by random
and had to have a designer
but I cannot accept that it was created in the way as told in Genesis by the God of the Old Testament and that the earth and heavens are 6000-10,000 years old.

If the earth was created by God then he would have already been around forever and could have waited 4.5 billion years to create the earth because what is time to God.

First you have the starlight puzzle then dinosaurs which should have been more common and had some world history written about them if they were around in ancient biblical times to work around.

Then you have the bigger more comical self reputing argument.
You want to have it both ways.
You say the heaven and earth is 6000-10,000 years old but want us to overlook the faux pa of old starlight and you talking in millions and billions(Carl Sagen billions and billions)of years when that would be before time
under your definition.

You can keep throwing infinite puzzles at me if I speculate on the how of something without answering your why.
If I could answer the why I'd have the Nobel Prize.

I'm not attacking God or Jesus just pointing out the inherent contradictions in your position as I see it.
It has been interesting arguing with you though.

Sore loser. I interpret by your long silence followed by this empty, backpedaling post that you have no answers for the queries I've posed to you. You claim to point out various contradictions, but you dismiss any mention of your own flawed arguments. You claim the universe is super old but you cannot explain how the galaxies are where they are without imagining something that basically resembles God.

You conveniently forget that this debate was born from a previous thread where you mocked Creationists and dismissed the notion that there was any science behind our claims. I've destroyed this mocking argument, while at the same time showing you that you have no evidence whatsoever backing up your absurd claims. I practically and repeatedly begged you to show me ONE solitary shred of evidence that demonstrates evolution, and you ignored my entreaty. At the same time, you've FAILED to make your case.

Bottom line is that you believe something that offers you no evidence to support it, and you do so because of (God knows why) an antipathy toward religious things.

It's okay to have faith in something, but you could at least, in the spirit of honesty, admit that that's what you're doing.

 

[foxpaws]

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?

You are assuming foss that the galaxies you mention always had arms - the common answer to this is that the galaxy started out as a disorganized group of stars, and as time passed, eventually they organized into the 'spiral arm' galaxy that you use in your example. The gravitational pull around something like dark matter could account for the eventual creation a spiral galaxy, but the timeline would be unknown to us, because of the dynamics of dark matter. The amount of time that it would take those galaxies to morph down into a disc galaxy is known, the amount of time that those galaxies were just masses of unorganized stars is unknown. The timeline for 'big bang' works well within those parameters, and answers #5 of your little 'list' of unknowns - there weren't galaxies to begin with - it took the cooling process to create dense or dark matter that created birthing grounds for galaxies - a place or reason for stars to start coming together in 'picturesque, orderly galaxies'. Lots of science there foss.

And something people here might want to understand about the 'big bang' it is an explosion of space, not in space. Foss, you keep talking about it like it is an explosion in space - which is fundamentally wrong. It is why #7 of that same list is easy to explain - that the universe isn't 'expanding' - it is 'stretching'. The space between the galaxies is stretching - it is why the 'of' space is the way to look at the big bang - and not 'in' space.

So, are you going to hit us with The Anthropic Principle? One of my favs... or maybe the recession of the moon...

 

[fossten]

You are assuming foss that the galaxies you mention always had arms - the common answer to this is that the galaxy started out as a disorganized group of stars, and as time passed, eventually they organized into the 'spiral arm' galaxy that you use in your example. The gravitational pull around something like dark matter could account for the eventual creation a spiral galaxy, but the timeline would be unknown to us, because of the dynamics of dark matter. The amount of time that it would take those galaxies to morph down into a disc galaxy is known, the amount of time that those galaxies were just masses of unorganized stars is unknown. The timeline for 'big bang' works well within those parameters, and answers #5 of your little 'list' of unknowns - there weren't galaxies to begin with - it took the cooling process to create dense or dark matter that created birthing grounds for galaxies - a place or reason for stars to start coming together in 'picturesque, orderly galaxies'. Lots of science there foss.

And something people here might want to understand about the 'big bang' it is an explosion of space, not in space. Foss, you keep talking about it like it is an explosion in space - which is fundamentally wrong. It is why #7 of that same list is easy to explain - that the universe isn't 'expanding' - it is 'stretching'. The space between the galaxies is stretching - it is why the 'of' space explosion is the way to look at the big bang - and not 'in' space.

So, are you going to hit us with The Anthropic Principle? One of my favs... or maybe the recession of the moon...

Tell me, fox, what caused the stars to 'organize'? Who's making wild assumptions here?

And where did the material for the 'big bang' come from?

Lots of speculation and storytelling there fox...no evidence whatsoever. There you go, making stuff up. I see a lot of 'could' and 'maybe' in your post - not to mention the word 'creation'! :bowrofl:. Got any evidence to back up your claims?

So, fox, are you going to hit me with the 'inflation theory' next? One of my favs...

 

[foxpaws]

Tell me, fox, what caused the stars to 'organize'? Who's making wild assumptions here?

And where did the material for the 'big bang' come from?

Lots of speculation there fox...no evidence whatsoever. There you go, making stuff up. I see a lot of 'could' and 'maybe' in your post - not to mention the word 'creation'! :bowrofl:. Got any evidence to back up your claims?

Here is the modeling for dark matter on galaxies...

Creation is the correct word there foss - religion and religious overtones are what you insert - but, in this case - it refers to development of entity, all mysticism of religion set aside.

And yes - there are could's and maybe's in science - these are theories that we are discussing. Creationism is also a theory.

So, now that we have the computational power to mathematically prove (soon) on how the big bang worked - we also have quantum geometry as well -

As scientists and mathematicians make fairly exact models of how the big bang worked - the question is will a 'reasonable man' defense be able to be made of it? We weren't there - just as we weren't there during all the steps of evolution - but, do you take the body of evidence, and say 'a reasonable man' would conclude...

Does a reasonable man believe in young earth - or does a reasonable man believe in evolution?

 

[fossten]

The big bang is bad science. It's not the same science that put men on the moon or allows your computer to function. It isn't testable, repeatable lab science. It doesn't make specific predictions that are confirmed by observation and experimentation.

Furthermore, the big bang should have produced monopoles, population III stars, and an equal amount of antimatter to matter. But none of these conditions exist anywhere.