|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:35 pm
Goldenlici Lethkhar Goldenlici You argued about my first post, not the changes I made in the second, so please don't be so quick to dismiss my posts. Carbon-14 dating is still a flawed process: organic or inorganic. We know carbon can change forms under pressure: diamonds. When was the last time you saw a dead organism go under so much pressure that diamonds were developed out of the carbon in its body? confused When was the last time you saw a rock turn into a diamond?Actually, come to think of it, you can compress yourself after you die into a form of diamond. As I said, it's irrelevant anyway. Quote: It's irrelevant, since carbon-14 will decay at the same rate no matter how much pressure is applied to it. That's the beauty of radioactivity. Not quite. That's my point. Even in a public high school chemistry class we were taught that the radioactive decay process can be flawed.Please, give me a source and study that shows pressure to cause radioactivity to slow.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:42 pm
Goldenlici Continental drift: The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. (Not to be confused with biologists) would say that the continents have converged several times in the history of the Earth, and that their separating was part of a natural cycle of plate tectonics. At least, that's what Bill Nye the Science Guy said. xd Quote: The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. The light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. You can estimate the distance the light originated from by looking at what kind of light is emitted. If it's more red light, that means it's farther away. (I might have that mixed up...It's been awhile sicne I studied this...) It's not like they're guessing. Quote: Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Black holes do that to light because of their great gravitational force. Why would an explosion have gravitational force? Quote: Similar genetic triats show that some things work for some species. If walking on two legs is so detrimental for humans, we would not have "evolved" that way, under Darwin's theory. All I can say is that while similar traits may be beneficial for multiple species there are also traits that would differ among species. That in itself is not proof for or against evolution. I'm not really sure what the argument is here... confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:29 pm
You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:26 pm
GuardianAngel44 You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument. I don't think that's what the video was about... confused ...On a related note, have you ever seen "Jesus Christ: Superstar"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:42 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument. I don't think that's what the video was about... confused ...On a related note, have you ever seen "Jesus Christ: Superstar"? Sorry, that was a different video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onLbeuEqNIEYeah. I don't really like it. Firstly, I don't like most musicals. Secondly, I didn't think the singing or acting was all that good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:00 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument. I don't think that's what the video was about... confused ...On a related note, have you ever seen "Jesus Christ: Superstar"? Sorry, that was a different video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onLbeuEqNIEYeah. I don't really like it. Firstly, I don't like most musicals. Secondly, I didn't think the singing or acting was all that good. Hm...I thought the music was great. And the guy who played Judas was tight. And in the original broadway recording, Ian Gillan from Deep Purple played as Jesus. Cool, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:25 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument. I don't think that's what the video was about... confused ...On a related note, have you ever seen "Jesus Christ: Superstar"? Sorry, that was a different video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onLbeuEqNIEYeah. I don't really like it. Firstly, I don't like most musicals. Secondly, I didn't think the singing or acting was all that good. Hm...I thought the music was great. And the guy who played Judas was tight. And in the original broadway recording, Ian Gillan from Deep Purple played as Jesus. Cool, huh? Who is Ian Gillian, and what is Deep Purple?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:08 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument. I don't think that's what the video was about... confused ...On a related note, have you ever seen "Jesus Christ: Superstar"? Sorry, that was a different video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onLbeuEqNIEYeah. I don't really like it. Firstly, I don't like most musicals. Secondly, I didn't think the singing or acting was all that good. Hm...I thought the music was great. And the guy who played Judas was tight. And in the original broadway recording, Ian Gillan from Deep Purple played as Jesus. Cool, huh? Who is Ian Gillian, and what is Deep Purple? Are you serious? eek You've never heard of Deep Purple? Deep Purple is one of the greatest rock bands of all time. They wrote "Smoke On The Water", which is basically the first song any guitarist learns. (Not me, though, I learned "Iron Man". But I learned "Smoke On The Water shortly thereafter.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:15 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 You guys came from a video about Jesus singing "I Will Survive" to another evolution argument. I don't think that's what the video was about... confused ...On a related note, have you ever seen "Jesus Christ: Superstar"? Sorry, that was a different video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onLbeuEqNIEYeah. I don't really like it. Firstly, I don't like most musicals. Secondly, I didn't think the singing or acting was all that good. Hm...I thought the music was great. And the guy who played Judas was tight. And in the original broadway recording, Ian Gillan from Deep Purple played as Jesus. Cool, huh? Who is Ian Gillian, and what is Deep Purple? Are you serious? eek You've never heard of Deep Purple? Deep Purple is one of the greatest rock bands of all time. They wrote "Smoke On The Water", which is basically the first song any guitarist learns. (Not me, though, I learned "Iron Man". But I learned "Smoke On The Water shortly thereafter.) I just looked them up. I probably havent' heard of them because they are british. ANd I'm not a guitarist, I'm a drummer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:14 pm
GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar Hm...I thought the music was great. And the guy who played Judas was tight. And in the original broadway recording, Ian Gillan from Deep Purple played as Jesus. Cool, huh? Who is Ian Gillian, and what is Deep Purple? Are you serious? eek You've never heard of Deep Purple? Deep Purple is one of the greatest rock bands of all time. They wrote "Smoke On The Water", which is basically the first song any guitarist learns. (Not me, though, I learned "Iron Man". But I learned "Smoke On The Water shortly thereafter.) I just looked them up. I probably havent' heard of them because they are british. ANd I'm not a guitarist, I'm a drummer. The Beatles are British. Led Zeppelin's British. The Who's British...*Sigh* Oh well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:59 pm
Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 Lethkhar Hm...I thought the music was great. And the guy who played Judas was tight. And in the original broadway recording, Ian Gillan from Deep Purple played as Jesus. Cool, huh? Who is Ian Gillian, and what is Deep Purple? Are you serious? eek You've never heard of Deep Purple? Deep Purple is one of the greatest rock bands of all time. They wrote "Smoke On The Water", which is basically the first song any guitarist learns. (Not me, though, I learned "Iron Man". But I learned "Smoke On The Water shortly thereafter.) I just looked them up. I probably havent' heard of them because they are british. ANd I'm not a guitarist, I'm a drummer. The Beatles are British. Led Zeppelin's British. The Who's British...*Sigh* Oh well... Led Zeppelin's British?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:14 pm
Lethkhar Goldenlici Continental drift: The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. (Not to be confused with biologists) would say that the continents have converged several times in the history of the Earth, and that their separating was part of a natural cycle of plate tectonics. At least, that's what Bill Nye the Science Guy said. xd I always heard meteor, but I guess that doesn't matter. Geologists really don't know why the plates separated. My only point was that because we don't know how they were separated, we can't say for sure how fast they drifted and whether the rate at which they are drifting today was the same as it was thousands of years ago.Quote: The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. The light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. You can estimate the distance the light originated from by looking at what kind of light is emitted. If it's more red light, that means it's farther away. (I might have that mixed up...It's been awhile sicne I studied this...) It's not like they're guessing. Yes, but why couldn't the light have been produced in the color we see closer. The idea is that as light travels for a long time it changes (or something like that, it's been a while for me too.). I just think there could be something that produces the "old" light. We have ways of producing different colors of light. Again, not solid proof, just a lack of evidence. We can't say for sure, so there has to be a degree of faith to believe in this.Quote: Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Black holes do that to light because of their great gravitational force. Why would an explosion have gravitational force? A black hole is caused by the explosion of a star. My only point is that the "rules" of light can be altered by extreme forces and a "big bang" would qualify as an extreme force.Quote: Similar genetic triats show that some things work for some species. If walking on two legs is so detrimental for humans, we would not have "evolved" that way, under Darwin's theory. All I can say is that while similar traits may be beneficial for multiple species there are also traits that would differ among species. That in itself is not proof for or against evolution. I'm not really sure what the argument is here... confused xp it was a point A Different Light made...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:14 pm
Goldenlici Lethkhar Goldenlici Continental drift: The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. (Not to be confused with biologists) would say that the continents have converged several times in the history of the Earth, and that their separating was part of a natural cycle of plate tectonics. At least, that's what Bill Nye the Science Guy said. xd I always heard meteor, but I guess that doesn't matter. Geologists really don't know why the plates separated. My only point was that because we don't know how they were separated, we can't say for sure how fast they drifted and whether the rate at which they are drifting today was the same as it was thousands of years ago.Who ever said that the tectonic plates ever separated? Or were even together, for that matter? The continents may have been together at one point, but the plates have always been separated as far as I know. In fact, the plates today probably are not the same plates as when Pangea was around. They all end up in the mantle, anyway... Quote: Quote: The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. The light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. You can estimate the distance the light originated from by looking at what kind of light is emitted. If it's more red light, that means it's farther away. (I might have that mixed up...It's been awhile sicne I studied this...) It's not like they're guessing. Yes, but why couldn't the light have been produced in the color we see closer. The idea is that as light travels for a long time it changes (or something like that, it's been a while for me too.). I just think there could be something that produces the "old" light. We have ways of producing different colors of light. Again, not solid proof, just a lack of evidence. We can't say for sure, so there has to be a degree of faith to believe in this.The change in the type of light is in the fact that light is eventually filtered through space. Certain types of light last longer than others. We produce artificially colored lights via an artificial filter of the color we want. You may be right. But then, science has never claimed to know everything absolutely. There's a degree of faith in any observation. That's the only truly valuable thing Descartes ever contributed to science, in my opinion. Quote: Quote: Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Black holes do that to light because of their great gravitational force. Why would an explosion have gravitational force? A black hole is caused by the explosion of a star. My only point is that the "rules" of light can be altered by extreme forces and a "big bang" would qualify as an extreme force.No, a black hole is caused by the implosion of a star. Its gravitational force is too great for it to maintain itself. This is very rare as most stars aren't massive enough for that. You may be right, though. It was certainly a large force. But I'm still confused as to what your point is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:48 pm
Quote: Who ever said that the tectonic plates ever separated? Or were even together, for that matter? I am pretty sure that was the scientific view, but that was ... 6 years ago, so it may have changed by now. Quote: You may be right. But then, science has never claimed to know everything absolutely. There's a degree of faith in any observation. That's the only truly valuable thing Descartes ever contributed to science, in my opinion. That has always been my viewpoint, but a lot of people are of the idea that science is absolute and completely logical with no faith required. The only difference between faith in God and faith in science is the fact that faith in God also requires submission to that faith. I know there needs to be more said about this, but I can't quite wrap my mind around exactly what that is. I am sure you know, though. 3nodding Quote: No, a black hole is caused by the implosion of a star. .... gonk You know I suck at semantics. Quote: You may be right, though. It was certainly a large force. But I'm still confused as to what your point is. My point is that this guy was arguing that the "rules" of light prove that the universe is old, but these "rules" can be changed when a large force is introduced. Thus, maybe the "rules" that show the universe to be old were influenced by a force that could make the universe younger than it appears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:56 pm
Goldenlici Quote: Who ever said that the tectonic plates ever separated? Or were even together, for that matter? I am pretty sure that was the scientific view, but that was ... 6 years ago, so it may have changed by now. I don't think that's true. I think the continents were once together, but not the plates..I dunno. You should check that. I wasn't really a great student in Geology. Quote: Quote: You may be right. But then, science has never claimed to know everything absolutely. There's a degree of faith in any observation. That's the only truly valuable thing Descartes ever contributed to science, in my opinion. That has always been my viewpoint, but a lot of people are of the idea that science is absolute and completely logical with no faith required. The only difference between faith in God and faith in science is the fact that faith in God also requires submission to that faith. I know there needs to be more said about this, but I can't quite wrap my mind around exactly what that is. I am sure you know, though. 3nodding No, the difference is magnitude. Faith in God relies completely on faith, whereas faith in science really just requires acknowledging that there is a point of uncertainty. Quote: Quote: No, a black hole is caused by the implosion of a star. .... gonk You know I suck at semantics. *Shrugs* There's a difference. Sorry. Quote: Quote: You may be right, though. It was certainly a large force. But I'm still confused as to what your point is. My point is that this guy was arguing that the "rules" of light prove that the universe is old, but these "rules" can be changed when a large force is introduced. Thus, maybe the "rules" that show the universe to be old were influenced by a force that could make the universe younger than it appears. Please, explain how this would occur and give me some lab results. Otherwise, I'm afraid the proponents of and old universe have an edge on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
