Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).

The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.

Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.

The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.

Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:

Forum Rules: Here


*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

What is Dark Energy?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    and it looks like the mainstream fuddy duddies are agin' it! That is usually a clue that they are on the right track. Upending the status quo. Everyone mocks and say no, and then eats crow. Happens with every new revolution in science. Doesn't mean that this guy is correct, but whatever IS correct will be sure to upset the entrenched scientists with a stake in the old ideas.
    We'll see. Overthrowing a paradigm in physics takes more than just a new idea; the new idea must be mathematically defensible and derivable from first principles. I don't believe any MOND theory fits these requirements at present.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein


    • #32
      explain what MOND is, please.


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        explain what MOND is, please.
        It's what's left of Monday after you remove the "ay" from it.


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          explain what MOND is, please.
          See post #21.
          MOND=MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (essentially the same as non-Newtonian gravity, i.e., a gravitational force which does not fall off as 1/r^2).
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein


          • #35
            I think Sparko is spot-on about dark matter. Way out there light is bending, but there is not detectable matter around to bend it, so to keep our high school and college physics textbooks around, we have to come up with something to explain why light is bending when there is nothing there. So, we create a new type of matter that we can't see because it doesn't reflect light. We have no way of knowing that it's there; we just create it to allow the laws of physics to work the same way out there. My problem other than the obvious is if light is not reflected, then it's absorbed. And if absorbed, how can that unique mass handle all of that energy?

            As a bit of an aside, not to be too critical this hypothetical construct idea. it is fairly consistently used in many disciplines. The idea of the subconscious or unconscious is simply a construct created by Freud and Jung to attempt to explain a lot of head stuff.


            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.