Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
You Say You Want An Evolution!
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat scripture says that? I know the texts that said where God would gather the elect from the four corners of the earth was used to support a flat earth. I don't remember a texts saying that the sun orbited the earth? Maybe the sun standing still thing?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLuther specifically cited Joshua 10. IIRC, Melanchthon cited Ecclesiastes 1:5Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Ecclesiastes 1:5 is at best Solomon's words, beliefs and laments. Not to mention poetry. Even if Solomon believed the world was flat, it doesn't mean the bible was teaching a flat earth. It was just reporting what Solomon thought. He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHe probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSolomon didn't believe in cooties.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI believe in germ theory - COOTIES!
Ipso Facto, Germ Theory is evil and should be abandoned.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSo did Hitler and other top Nazis. The likened their attempt to eliminate the Jews with trying to eradicate an infection.
Ipso Facto, Germ Theory is evil and should be abandoned.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostEcclesiastes 1:5 is at best Solomon's words, beliefs and laments. Not to mention poetry. Even if Solomon believed the world was flat, it doesn't mean the bible was teaching a flat earth. It was just reporting what Solomon thought. He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostDo you think you could offer what you think is the strongest argument in favor of a young earth rather than simply saying watch this nearly 2 hour long video?
He reminds people that the lack of explanation by astronomers doesn't mean that a young earth is true, but the secular model doesn't hold up with any consistency.
Here are some details that I can recall ... as best as I can recall
The moon moves farther from the earth every year. If the solar system was more than a million years old, the moon would be touching the earth at that time.
The rotation of the earth, around its axis, decreases over time. If projected back so many millions of years ago, the earth would have had to do a 360 rotation in 2.5 hours ...which would have scattered the water away from its surface.
There is no theory for the initial creation of planets from scattered particles in space.
The theory for the high density of Mercury assumes that there must have been soft material at the outer layers ...but where the outer material was thought to be knocked away by an asteroid hit.
Uranus and Neptune couldn't form within the age of our solar system using planetary-formation theories.
No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe.
Gas clouds are too dispersed to independently contribute to star formation.
The speed of light has probably changed drastically -- so we couldn't use the speed-of-light to determine the distance and age of stars
One observation was concerning 300 remote mature Galaxies that formed 3 to 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The secular model expected "zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago" (Video 2 22:07) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...708014406.htm]
Essentially the videos describe an accumulation of many observations that tend to point to a younger universe than the secular models speak about. It seems the speaker is saying that the secular models are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Comment
-
The further clarification of the goal of the video is that the Big Bang model isn't some solid, consistent theory of science that we should treat as reliable and unquestionable proof that the universe is billions of years old. In fact, the observed phenomena often shows rates of change or degradation which either produce conflicts within secular theory (e.g., a mature galaxy forming in 500 million years instead of the expected 2 billion years) or age constraints (such as the moon's rate of increasing distance from the earth showing that this change in distance couldn't be sustained for a billion years).
The Christian then doesn't have to assume that 'science' has proven the Bible to be wrong. We don't have to accept the idea that scripture and science are antithetical -- that we are 'believing' ideas contrary to scientific evidence if we hold to a young age of the Earth and universe. (The video does notably differentiate experimental/methodological science from the study and theories of cosmology.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostThere are three or four videos. So it is longer than 2 hours.
He reminds people that the lack of explanation by astronomers doesn't mean that a young earth is true, but the secular model doesn't hold up with any consistency.
Here are some details that I can recall ... as best as I can recall
The moon moves farther from the earth every year. If the solar system was more than a million years old, the moon would be touching the earth at that time.
The rotation of the earth, around its axis, decreases over time. If projected back so many millions of years ago, the earth would have had to do a 360 rotation in 2.5 hours ...which would have scattered the water away from its surface.
There is no theory for the initial creation of planets from scattered particles in space.
The theory for the high density of Mercury assumes that there must have been soft material at the outer layers ...but where the outer material was thought to be knocked away by an asteroid hit.
Uranus and Neptune couldn't form within the age of our solar system using planetary-formation theories.
No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe.
Gas clouds are too dispersed to independently contribute to star formation.
The speed of light has probably changed drastically -- so we couldn't use the speed-of-light to determine the distance and age of stars
One observation was concerning 300 remote mature Galaxies that formed 3 to 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The secular model expected "zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago" (Video 2 22:07) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...708014406.htm]
Essentially the videos describe an accumulation of many observations that tend to point to a younger universe than the secular models speak about. It seems the speaker is saying that the secular models are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
First, they suspect that the moon DID come from the earth during a collision but that was longer than a million years ago.
The rotation thing is just bad math
There are plenty of theories of planet creation
I have no idea about Mercury
The Uranus/Neptune thing is just wrong. I just watched a show on sci channel that showed a theory of how they ended up in their orbits. Short answer: Jupiter.
They are observing stars forming right now in various nebulas.
There is no reason to think the speed of light has changed or could change.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostEverything on that list is wrong.
First, they suspect that the moon DID come from the earth during a collision but that was longer than a million years ago.
The rotation thing is just bad math
There are plenty of theories of planet creation
I have no idea about Mercury
The Uranus/Neptune thing is just wrong. I just watched a show on sci channel that showed a theory of how they ended up in their orbits. Short answer: Jupiter.
They are observing stars forming right now in various nebulas.
There is no reason to think the speed of light has changed or could change.
There are apparently data to show that the speed of light has changed. The video mentioned two independently presented theories regarding the change of speed reflected in the data across a (couple?) hundred years. This has been discussed among physicists. you could start here http://ldolphin.org/cdk-helen.html. So, there may be reason to think the speed of light has changed; you may be indicating that this theory isn't commonly incorporated within the broadest scientific community.
Some of your issues seem to be semantic -- sorry where I have used terms that allow for such side-tracking. Another issue is that just because someone has theories about how planets were formed, this doesn't mean that the theory is correct. (The video doesn't say that there was a lack of theories of planet formation.) I think the approach of the video was to show that even the existing theories have led to contradictions and inconsistencies
I would like to get a website setup to structure discussions on facts, theories, and observations so that details of such theories could be documented ... and easy to see how complete the ideas are. So, if there are papers observing that the speed of light hasn't not been consistent across time, this could be paired up with the opposition ideas that the speed has not changed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostEcclesiastes 1:5 is at best Solomon's words, beliefs and laments. Not to mention poetry. Even if Solomon believed the world was flat, it doesn't mean the bible was teaching a flat earth. It was just reporting what Solomon thought. He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,394 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment