Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
Spreading out the heavens / space faster than the speed of light is one possible answer. 'Evolutionists' also claim that space expanded faster than speed of light.
Here is another suggestion..."Anisotropic Synchrony Convention"
https://answersingenesis.org/astron...nchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/
Well..... I don't know who ASA is, so I don't know if they have a rational explanation. If they are a Christian group trying to insert time into scripture, then they are compromising scripture and the Gospel.
This is screwed up and the line length is off kilter. It is from noguru posting that 'showthread' post #16291 on top of this page. I can't remember what to do about it. And there is no moderator that I can see. Noguru, erase your 'showthread' in your post above. Thanks! This is too hard to read!
Thanks & God's Best!!
Michael
Thanks & God's Best!!
Michael
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Thanks a lot, noguru, for the pic of the Emu that messed up the entire page of posts! You should turn it off after you are done. Well, I know you just had good intentions, so not to worry!! Anyways, I mixed up Emus and Gnus. That's all.
Good to have you back!! You were gone quite awhile!
Much Love, In Christ,
Michael
Good to have you back!! You were gone quite awhile!
Much Love, In Christ,
Michael
6days
New member
I did suggest a couple ideas, and there are others....... BUT, it reminded me of how stellar evolutionists also have various ideas..... some of which are silly and unscientific. I posted this previously
"Here are a few zany ideas / beliefs aired recently on BBC... Dr Andrei Linde,Professor of Physics at Stanford University wrote:
Just after matter first appeared, rather than a messy explosion, there was instead a massive and unprecedented growth in the size of the universe. This is called Inflation. If one assumes there was a period of exponential expansion of the universe in some energetic vacuum-like state, then you can explain why the universe is so large, why the universe is so small at a very large scale, why properties of the universe in different parts are so similar to each other. All these questions can be addressed if one uses inflation.
BBC comment “Inflation was a pre-existing condition that has been there, well, for ever. For Prof. Linde, the big bang wasn’t really a starting point at all; he thinks that it was simply the end of something else. The universe appeared out of what he calls eternal inflation. Out universe is not the only one. There are others, all co-existing. He has counted them. There are ten to the power 10 to the power 10 to the power 7. His ideas of a multi-verse, as odd as they seem, are now within the scientific mainstream. For many cosmologists eternal inflation is in itself a reasonable explanation of what existed before our universe. For others it’s utter nonsense.”
"Dr Singh, Theoretical Physics wrote:
The principal mathematical objection [to the universe expanding from nothing] is that as the clock is wound back and Hubble’s zero hour is approached, all the stuff in the universe is crammed into a smaller and smaller space. Eventually that space will become infinitely small. And in mathematics, invoking infinity is the same as giving up, or cheating.....Instead of emerging from nothing, our universe owes its existence to a previous one that had the misfortune to collapse in on itself. Then, thanks to some clever maths, rebounded to what we see today. So the big bang was not a bang at all. It was rather a big bounce. … Of course it might all be nothing more than a fantasy world of maths and little else, and there’s always the nagging question of what started the infinite bouncing in the first place. It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible.
'BBC comment "No big bang at all; just the big bounce, again and again and again."
"Dr Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physics wrote:
How can it be that everything comes from nothing? (as in the Big bang)If you think about it a while, you begin to realise it all depends on how you define ‘nothing’! I think there are two kinds of nothing. First there is something I call absolute nothing: no equations, no space, no time, no anything that the human mind can conceive of, just nothing. Then there is the vacuum which is nothing but the absence of matter....So for me the universe did not come from absolute nothing—that is a state of no equations, no empty space, no time; it came from a pre-existing state—also a state of nothing. Our universe did in fact come from an infinitesimally tiny little explosion that took place giving us the big bang, and giving us the galaxies and stars we have today.
"BBC comment "For Prof. Kaku, the laws of physics did not arrive with the big bang. The appearance of matter did not start with the clock of time. His interpretation of nothing tells us there was, in short, a ‘before’."
"Prof. Smolin, researcher wrote:
There is a bounce inside every black hole. Material contracts and contracts and contracts again, and then begins to expand again, and that is the big bang which initiates the new region of the universe...Before the big bang there was another universe much like our own. In that universe was a big cloud of gases. It collapsed to form a massive star. That star exploded. It left behind a black hole and in that black hole there was a region, if you were misfortunate enough to fall in, you would find it becoming denser and denser and denser. You wouldn’t survive this but imagine you did—then all of a sudden you would explode again and that would be our big bang.
"BBC comment “Smolin’s natural selection idea proposes that for a universe to prosper it must reproduce and for that to happen it must contain black holes that, according to Smolin, spawn offspring universes.”
"Dr Neil Turok, Executive Director of the Perimeter Institute wrote:
There are essentially two possibilities at the beginning. Either time did not exist before the beginning; somehow time sprang into existence. That’s a notion we have no grasp of and which may be a logical contradiction. The other possibility is that this event which initiated our universe was a violent event in a pre-existing universe....We live on an extended object called a brane (short for membrane). … You can’t have only one; there must be at least two, separated by a gap. These two branes collide. When they collide they remain extended; it’s not all of space shrinking to a point. … They fill with a density of plasma and matter, but it’s finite. Everything is a definite number which you can calculate, and which you can then describe using definite mathematical laws. That’s the essential picture of the big bang in our model.
"BBC comment "For many cosmologists this is mathematical sleight of hand.”
"Sir Roger Penrose,Mathematics prof at Oxford wrote:
(the)current picture of the universe is that it starts with a big bang and it ends with an exponentially expanding universe, where it eventually cools off with not much left except protons. … This very expanded universe is the equivalent to a big bang of another one. … This universe is one eon of a succession of eons. Each expanding universe accounts for the big bang of the next.
"BBC comment “Because of this a nearly infinitely large universe could just as well be the infinitely small starting point for the next one. A simplistic system with a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. Quite a bold thrust for a man who was until five years ago a pre-big-bang denier.”
"BBC analysis...They would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it.
"Perhaps we should add one more possibility into the mix of ideas.... IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED!"
6days
New member
I posted this a couple years ago...( 'Faster-ticking clock' indicates early solar system may have evolved faster than we think')
Can all dating be wrong by 30%? by more than 99%?
How do scientists know how much daughter elements existed in the beginning?
How do scientists know if there was ever conditions which caused accelerated decay rates?
How do scientists know if parent / daughter elements were ever added or removed? (leeching)
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-faster-ticking-clock-early-solar-evolved.html
Hedshaker
New member
There it is again for the umpteenth time. The classic 6 days straw man, from the poster who constantly accuses others of the Straw man fallacy.
And once again, life must have came from none life at some point whether it happened naturally or was poofed magically by a God.
Since there is no evidence for any Gods and supernatural magic that leaves natural as the favoured line of enquiry.
gcthomas
New member
From your link
| The new time scale, interestingly, is now consistent with a recent and precise dating made on a lunar rock and is in better agreement with the dating obtained with other chronometers. |
it looks like Sm-146 was always an outlier, and now consistently fits the 4.5 billion year age for the solar system.
Is that the conclusion you drew from the article you referenced?
Why don't you make the effort and talk to someone who actually does radiometric dating? Too much work? Too much chance of having your faith questioned? Too scared?
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Give me hard evidence of the supernatural. You won't get through natural means. You are chasing your tail. You may get it supernaturally if you truly desire it.
6days
New member
Of course not. The conclusion is that dates can be shifted by billions of years to accomodate the belief system
6days
New member
We know life does not come from non life.
Hedshaker... you are not being logical. Please.....
1. Do you agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause?
2. Do you agree that there was a beginning to everything?
If your answer to #2 is yes, then the cause must have pre-existed throughout eternity.
If your answer to #2 is no, then again you must believe that domething uncaused has existed throughout eternity.
Hedshaker
New member
For crying out loud we've been over this and over it!
First you have to prove your God exists. Then you have to prove it did not begin to exist. Bible verses, creation site links and apologetics site links will be ignored. The Kalam/Craig lane argument is dead in the water, where it belongs.
A beginning from what, exactly? If you are saying there has ever been "nothing", then prove it.
That would be existence itself in some form or another, ever changing. We have no idea about the state of pre Big Bang existence and probably never will but there is no evidence that it began from nothing. The very idea is preposterous. You are the only one who talks about "everything from nothing" so that your God could poof the universe from nothing. So you prove it!
I don't believe there has ever been "nothing". Nothing is just nothing. If there ever was nothing, there would still be nothing.
nihil fit ex nihilo
ETA: and I'm not alone. Many top cosmologists including Roger Penrose agree
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
An infinity of cause and effect breaks down logically with no beginning and nothing to get the dominoes rolling. An uncaused entity that has always existed is mind blowing. Those with faith in God accept our mental limits. Those who do not have faith, refuse the truth of our limitations. With pride rearing its ugly head.
6days
New member
Yes...we sure have.
I did not mention Him. I argued that there must be a cause.
Now you are arguing that "something" may have existed throughout eternity?Hedshaker;4594131 A beginning from what said:
Do you always offer a few rambling incomplete sentences which fail to make a clearly defined point?
Hedshaker
New member
As it happens the mainstream science community disagree with you. And I agree with them, not you.
Hogwash, we know no such thing.
I find it interesting that theists are more and more relying on uncertainties still found in the farthest extremes of cosmology to try to find a gap they can keep their God safe in.
- Status