Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.

Provide the link to mine and YWC Harun Yahya cut and pastes liar or beat it.

Can't find the link? It's readily accessible. I was curious to see if the other creationist would step up to the plate.

Does hey-Zeus approve of your lies and deceit?

You can't use your lies and trickery to turn this one around. You accused ME of cutting and pasting from Haran Yahya. Now show me where I did that liar or get lost.

 

[UltimateReality]

it's a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..

Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.

it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state) is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
you seem to think it's OK for you to character assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a ***** when you get some.
put your big boy pants on...

As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.

 

[UltimateReality]

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.



A Visit to the ICR: Part 8

Miscellany and Conclusions
A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.

This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.

In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?

The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").

"Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.

Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).

Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)

There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:

If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.

Nice cut and paste LIAR but I don't subscribe to the ICR's views.

Still waiting on the link to where I cut and pasted from Haran Yahya's website.

 

[Hollie]

No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?

Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.

My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.

I just threw up in my mouth again. Please quit verbalizing your fantasies about me pervert.

Your're an angry, frustrated stalker, I understand that. Your creepy advances being rejected causes you to real hurt and angst.

Drink the Kool-Aid. You'll feel better about yourself.

 

[Hollie]

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.



A Visit to the ICR: Part 8

Miscellany and Conclusions
A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.

This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.

In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?

The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").

"Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.

Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).

Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)

There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:

If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.

Nice cut and paste LIAR but I don't subscribe to the ICR's views.

Still waiting on the link to where I cut and pasted from Haran Yahya's website.

The ICR is standard fare for intellectual sloths such as yourself.

Gargantuan fonts - how cute for the intellectually absent.

 

[UltimateReality]

What does relativity have to with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.

We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Amos Bronson Alcott

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

"Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.

Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.

Your "question" derives from nonsensical creationist attempts to mold answers to fit a predefined conclusion. Your really silly posts in connection with thermodynamics are typical, boilerplate creationist silliness that has been refuted and discarded as junk science.

You've been spoken to repeatedly about the careless and assinine cut and pasting you dump in this thread and your latest disaster (the thermo nonsense), may be your most careless and assisnie yet.

Prove it LIAR or kindly exit. I'm sick of you trolling and making false statements willy nilly. Be prepared to back up your accusations of posters here.

 

[newpolitics]

We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Amos Bronson Alcott

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

 

[Hollie]

Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.

Your "question" derives from nonsensical creationist attempts to mold answers to fit a predefined conclusion. Your really silly posts in connection with thermodynamics are typical, boilerplate creationist silliness that has been refuted and discarded as junk science.

You've been spoken to repeatedly about the careless and assinine cut and pasting you dump in this thread and your latest disaster (the thermo nonsense), may be your most careless and assisnie yet.

Prove it LIAR or kindly exit. I'm sick of you trolling and making false statements willy nilly. Be prepared to back up your accusations of posters here.

I posted a link to the ICR website.

Don't be so angry. Just go and get professional help for the pathology that haunts you and manifests itself as creepy stalking.

 

[UltimateReality]

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.



Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.



This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.


Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing...

Or you could ask a history professor.



Which scientists and why?



Firstly, what predictions.

Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?


Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.


Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well


Took you long enough.



Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.

Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted

By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.

Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.

As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.

LIAR.

Waiting on that link.

 

[Hollie]

We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Amos Bronson Alcott

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]

That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?

 

[Hollie]

Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted

By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.

Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.

As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.

LIAR.

Waiting on that link.

Ah, yes. The gargantuan pink fonts. How cute.

Here's a hint for you, creepy stalker. Do a search for the term "darwinism-refuted" and see what you find. If you need additional help, raise your hand.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.



A Visit to the ICR: Part 8

Miscellany and Conclusions
A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.

This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.

In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?

The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").

"Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.

Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).

Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)

There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:

If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.

Nice cut and paste LIAR but I don't subscribe to the ICR's views.

Still waiting on the link to where I cut and pasted from Haran Yahya's website.

The ICR is standard fare for intellectual sloths such as yourself.

Gargantuan fonts - how cute for the intellectually absent.

As usual you accuse someone of something and then try to ignore their requests for validation of your accusations.

You are a proven liar. The reason you can't provide a link is because I have NEVER cut and pasted or for that matter, even quoted anything from Harun Yahya.

Put up or shut up. Show me the link or just admit your that it doesn't exist and concede you are liar.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]

That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?

No need to respond to a proven LIAR.

 

[Hollie]

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube

That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?

No need to respond to a proven LIAR.

I thought you would look for a reason to slither away.

What experiments can be done to test for your gawds? It seems like a simple question that would appeal to one such limited abilities.

 

[HUGGY]

That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?

No need to respond to a proven LIAR.

I thought you would look for a reason to slither away.

What experiments can be done to test for your gawds? It seems like a simple question that would appeal to one such limited abilities.

Gosh ..all ya haz ta du is opin yo big baby blues in da moanin an cee teh wundr ob itz all!!!

It's as plain as the quizz icle look on yur faaas.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning....

What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.

This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation

And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.

To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)

You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.

You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces complex, specifiable digital code.

 

[UltimateReality]

That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?

No need to respond to a proven LIAR.

I thought you would look for a reason to slither away.

What experiments can be done to test for your gawds? It seems like a simple question that would appeal to one such limited abilities.

The same experiments that have proven natural selection acting on random mutations results in traits providing higher fitness.

Game, set, match.

...LIAR. Why not just admit it and save everyone from the large fonts? You lied when you said I quoted Harun Yahya or cut and pasted from his website.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)

Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

 

[newpolitics]

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)

Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.

No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is. (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.

This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.