tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3713425296020759943..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Chris Hallquist's First Live DebateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52418431699842166952007-05-05T23:02:00.000-04:002007-05-05T23:02:00.000-04:00calvin,That's another really funny comment, since ...calvin,<BR/><BR/>That's another really funny comment, since you are the one making up science as you go along (law of cause and effect, corollary of causal agent, disproof of cyclic universe).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22669907824399837682007-05-05T22:50:00.000-04:002007-05-05T22:50:00.000-04:00One Wave,Have you taken the time to look at both s...One Wave,<BR/><BR/><I>Have you taken the time to look at both sides?</I><BR/><BR/>Every time someone brings up a creationist argument, I have taken the time to examine the argument, and how it's refuted. I have not examined creationism beyond that level. And I don't plan to. Why? Because I don't have an infinite amount of time. I could devote my entire life to learning science, and die leaving with the majority of it still unexplored. I certainly don't have the time to also explore every proposed alternative. If someone thinks they have a valid challenge to a scientific theory, it's up to them to make their case. Don't expect me to spend the time to try to make their case for them. Proponents of ID and YEC have tried to make their case, and have been found wanting.<BR/><BR/>Btw, there isn't just two sides. For every scientific theory, there's an infinite number of alternatives that can be proposed. My advice to you, if I may offer it, is to spend more time learning about current scientific theories. Focus on science because it's the champ, because it has thus far produced the best explanations. Then you'll be better equipped to judge the validity of proposed criticisms and alternatives.<BR/><BR/>Poaching from calvin now...<BR/><BR/><I>What dating method was used to come up with those numbers? Look into dating methods for yourself. Don't read prepackaged ideology, read the forums of the scientists who use science and not dogma to discuss these methods.</I><BR/><BR/>How about you, One Wave? Do you know what dating methods were used to come up with those numbers? Calvin was quite specific with the items on their list, so it shouldn't be very hard to find information on each number. Know thy enemy, learn what dating method(s) was used to come up with each. Then tell us what your objections are.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know if the earth is young or old...</I><BR/><BR/>It's practically impossible to prove something, but it's certainly possible to disprove something. Scientists have disproved the idea of a young Earth, using evidence including but not limited to what I have already linked. If you can't invalidate those findings, there's no reason to believe in a young Earth.<BR/><BR/><I> and I don't know if the universe had a beginning as we understand beginning to be.</I><BR/><BR/>And science doesn't claim to know either; I invite you to watch along with the rest of us as science continues to work at the problem.<BR/><BR/><I>My point is not to prove anything but to encourage anyone reading to look for themselves. Don't read one side or from one source and think you have all the answers.</I><BR/><BR/>Again the insinuation that science is blithely ignoring challenges and arrogantly claiming to have all the answers! Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It does claim confidence in ideas that are supported by evidence. That is not arrogance. Arrogance is creationists trying to claim scientific status for proposals wholly unsupported, and often contradicted, by evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>My hope is that if there is anyone truly interested in searching for God and knowing Him that they would kick off their preconceptions, religious or otherwise and seek Him.</I><BR/><BR/>Imagine a Muslim making the same request. He has found Allah, and believes you should do the same. Give up everything you have and devote your life to this quest. Oh, and if you can't find Allah, just keep looking, and look harder. Because this Muslim is certain that He is there to be found, you just aren't trying hard enough. How does this sound to you? Would you accept this request? Why should we?<BR/><BR/><I>What is it in all of us, especially children, that makes us experience wonder? Endorphines? Give me a break.</I><BR/><BR/>What scientists claims this, or is this another creationist strawman?<BR/><BR/><I>If one be macro-evolution then explain your hypothesis for where that evolution is taking us. If we experience hope and wonder, there must be a goal.</I><BR/><BR/>Evolution simply describes how a population's inherited traits change from one generation to another. Through natural selection, a population generally becomes better adapted to its environment. If you're looking for a goal, there you have it: evolution is taking us to be better adapted to our environment.<BR/><BR/><I>...it's absurd to think that developing reason, problem solving and the ability to create would be purely natural processes. The probability of a single bacteria forming by natural processes is astronomical let alone the ability to reason.</I><BR/><BR/>It's absurd to claim the odds of reason, problem-solving, etc. coming about by purely natural processes are astronomical without showing us how you estimated these odds. Don't forget to take into account that these traits seem to have propelled us to become the dominant species on the planet, and natural selection favors advantageous traits. So what are the odds?<BR/><BR/>The general argument that if something is improbable, then it couldn't have happened, is absurd. What are the odds of someone getting a particular bridge hand (hint: it's astronomical)? Using your argument, a person can't get dealt ANY hand, because any particular hand is so unlikely. So we're left with a person getting dealt a bridge hand, and then all the cards poofing into nothing; now that's absurd :)<BR/><BR/>I wish you well, and look forward to our next exchange.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5336230991581177182007-05-05T15:58:00.000-04:002007-05-05T15:58:00.000-04:00One Wave you're starting to sound like Benny and t...One Wave you're starting to sound like Benny and the other's who want to get arround the scientific facts just to support your pre-conceived bizzare ideology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70319063222728772112007-05-05T15:30:00.000-04:002007-05-05T15:30:00.000-04:00OK, I'm losing credibility by the second by contin...OK, I'm losing credibility by the second by continuing to post after saying I would not....one last point.<BR/><BR/>I think the break down in communication comes from why I am posting what I have.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if the earth is young or old and I don't know if the universe had a beginning as we understand beginning to be.<BR/><BR/>My point is not to prove anything but to encourage anyone reading to look for themselves. Don't read one side or from one source and think you have all the answers. I am not claiming to have all the answers and would be skeptical, to the point of dismissing opinions, of anyone who claims they do.<BR/><BR/>My hope is that if there is anyone truly interested in searching for God and knowing Him that they would kick off their preconceptions, religious or otherwise and seek Him. <BR/><BR/>How do you seek Him?<BR/>Make it your first priority. Quit your job and go into the hills where nothing but what He has created will "speak" to you, or come home from work and devote time alone in a room when you ask Him to come to you.<BR/><BR/>Throw stones in the air when you get mad at Him and remind Him He promised to answer those who seek with all their heart. Yell and be angry, cry and be in despair until He answers. That's what I did and it wasn't until then, until I could not try another day and was ready to not believe and get on with life that He revealed Himself to me in such a powerful way that I cannot doubt His existence.<BR/><BR/>Until you've done that, I have no sympathy for those who claim they can't find Him. Until you are willing to lose everything for the sake of finding Him you may not get an answer. <BR/><BR/>I have confidence when I say that those who go beyond religion to seek the I Am, find Him and would say the same thing.<BR/><BR/>"I Am" being the best way I can think to describe the Being I know as God...there are no words to adequately describe Him. He just exists as He is.<BR/><BR/>What is it in all of us, especially children, that makes us experience wonder? Endorphines? Give me a break. Endorphines are released in response to a thought process or belief, not the other way around. Why stifle that sense of wonder? Press through to find out where that sense of wonder comes from...what are the plausible answers? If one be macro-evolution then explain your hypothesis for where that evolution is taking us. If we experience hope and wonder, there must be a goal. Yes, I can hear you say, "Why does there need to be a goal?" My response would be, it's absurd to think that developing reason, problem solving and the ability to create would be purely natural processes. The probability of a single bacteria forming by natural processes is astronomical let alone the ability to reason. The fact that we are able to reason beyond the obvious tells us, or at least me, that there is something more than the obvious. <BR/><BR/>That is really it, I have nothing else to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10930109895037007002007-05-05T12:44:00.000-04:002007-05-05T12:44:00.000-04:00...and Calvin,What dating method was used to come ......and Calvin,<BR/>What dating method was used to come up with those numbers? Look into dating methods for yourself. Don't read prepackaged ideology, read the forums of the scientists who use science and not dogma to discuss these methods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27424131026165193012007-05-05T12:40:00.000-04:002007-05-05T12:40:00.000-04:00Benny, I do have to address this because it is imp...Benny, <BR/>I do have to address this because it is important.<BR/><BR/>Have you taken the time to look at both sides? If all you are doing is reading the responses of evolutionists to the claims of creationists then you will not get a correct view of creationists.<BR/><BR/>I read the links you gave and I can't go into the misconceptions involved in the argument given but I can say that it was the big bang scientists that started the idea of an explosion and creationists were responding to that orignal theory. <BR/><BR/>If you would spend time really looking into what creation scientists actually have to say, you might be surprised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70342185672471382222007-05-05T01:56:00.000-04:002007-05-05T01:56:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,I really wish you the best. Hi All,I a...Hi One Wave,<BR/>I really wish you the best. <BR/><BR/>Hi All,<BR/>I agree with Prup and Benny, (surprised?). The characteristic of predictability strongly supports a presumption. When we can't know for sure something is true, a strong presumption goes a long way in acquiring knowledge about it. <BR/><BR/>Since Calvin is a Christian, and he believes in an Old Earth, and I know that there is dissension in the Christian ranks over this issue, in my mind that is enough to discredit Young Earth Creation. Why should I believe it when a Christian doesn't?<BR/><BR/>One Wave has pretty much advanced the 'slippery slope' charge against the Big Bang. The Big Bang is built on presumptions, not irrefutable evidence, but the key characteristics that give it strong support, as benny said, are those that allow us to make predictions about our universe. The big bang is built on presumptions that allow us to make predictions about the Universe. Therefore, it is more likely than any other. That was my point in the analogy of the trash earlier. Big Foot could have pawed and chewed on the trash, but there is more evidence to support a presumption for the Dog Hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>Scientists get grants for successful outcomes. An opponent can argue that they produce what they are told to produce and the money keeps coming. Undoubtedly that goes on, but to a smaller degree than the rest. We can't deny or get away from a small percentage of corruption in any case Christian, scientific, agnostic or whatever.<BR/><BR/>But a successful outcome last longer if it is built on solid science. Businesses profit, markets are strengthened industries are built. There is a strong influence for scientists to do their job. Some of the science is suspect, some of it changes the world. <BR/><BR/>So if we decide that the world and universe is old, and whether or not we can more or less agree on the mechanisms at work, how does one show these mechanisms are likely to be influenced by a God?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25323226420372409162007-05-05T01:01:00.000-04:002007-05-05T01:01:00.000-04:00A page on the scientific method, evidence, and the...A page on the scientific method, evidence, and the definition of scientific hypotheses, theories, and facts:<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33139204893274537062007-05-05T00:45:00.000-04:002007-05-05T00:45:00.000-04:00Talk about unexpected... Calvin, that's an admira...Talk about unexpected... Calvin, that's an admirably extensive list. Although some of it seems irrelevant, since YEC, as far as I know, makes no claims about the age of the universe, only the age of the Earth and life on Earth.<BR/><BR/><I>Also most of the design in the universe is connected to it's age.</I><BR/><BR/>What does this mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56011652976957479532007-05-05T00:25:00.000-04:002007-05-05T00:25:00.000-04:00An incomplete list of evidence for the age of the ...An incomplete list of evidence for the age of the universe.<BR/><BR/>Deuterium abundance and mass density - 19 billion<BR/><BR/>Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect - 18 billion<BR/><BR/>Nucleochronology - 17 billion<BR/><BR/>Anthropic principles - 17 billion<BR/><BR/>Star color luminosity fitting - 14 billion<BR/><BR/>Expansion of the universe (WMAP) - 13.7 billion<BR/><BR/>Galaxy lenses time delay - 13.5 billion<BR/><BR/>Spectral line of uranium-238 - 12.5 billion<BR/><BR/>Supernova standard candles - 12 billion<BR/><BR/>Globular Clusters - 12 billion<BR/><BR/>Gravitational lensing - 11 billion<BR/><BR/>Light travel-time based on quasar-light source - 10 billion<BR/><BR/>Cepheids - 9 billion<BR/><BR/>Expanding photosphere - 9 billion<BR/><BR/>Star stream interactions in galaxies - 8 billion<BR/><BR/>Geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 - 5.9 billion<BR/><BR/>Age of moon rocks - 4.5 billion<BR/><BR/>Age of meteorites - 4.5 billion<BR/><BR/>Accumulation of space dust on the moon - 4.5 billion<BR/><BR/>Relaxation times of star clusters - 4 billion<BR/><BR/>Erosion on mercury, mars, and moon - 4 billion<BR/><BR/>Age of earth rocks - 4 billion<BR/><BR/>Length of days of coral fossils - 370 million<BR/><BR/>Accumulation of sodium in the oceans - 260 million<BR/><BR/>Rate of continental drift to form the Atlantic ocean - 200 million<BR/><BR/>Reversal of earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic sea bottom - 80 million<BR/><BR/>Erosion of the Grand Canyon - 25 million<BR/><BR/>Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 - 23.5 million<BR/><BR/>Carbonate deposits - 12.4 million<BR/><BR/>Sedimentary rock formations on Mars - 10 million<BR/><BR/>Ooids (small spheroidal bodies - > 7 million<BR/><BR/>The green river annual layers - 4 million<BR/><BR/>Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 - 2.4 million<BR/><BR/>Evaporites - > 3 million<BR/><BR/>Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays - 830,000<BR/><BR/>Huge stalacites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico - 500,000<BR/><BR/>Vastok ice core in Antartica - 420,000<BR/><BR/>Thickness of coral reefs - 130,000<BR/><BR/>Also most of the design in the universe is connected to it's age.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65222152525228515902007-05-05T00:00:00.000-04:002007-05-05T00:00:00.000-04:00One Wave,I thought you said you were familiar with...One Wave,<BR/><BR/>I thought you said you were familiar with talkorigins? If so, why do you persist in bringing up creationist arguments that are already addressed by the site, without providing anything that refutes the scientific responses? Once again, I ask you to read this page, which explains that the creationist argument about retrograde planets (and by the same token, reverse spin galaxies) are built on nothing more than ignorance of what conservation of angular momentum actually means:<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html<BR/><BR/>Prup, I hope you don't mind if I do a bit of poaching...<BR/><BR/><I>No one knows for sure... Unless it is something in front of our eyes that the average person can observe and draw a reasonable conclusion to, it cannot be proven...on either side.</I><BR/><BR/>This is probably the single most common creationist/ID utterance, used to try to give credibility to their pseudo-science. It shows an utmost ignorance of science. Yes, it is true that few things, if any, can be proven definitively. But science is not about proving theories definitively; it is about picking the best explanation. A explanation is better than the alternatives if it can do a better job of explaining observed evidence and make better predictions. This is the case for Big Bang, old Earth, and evolution. If you want to challenge an established theory, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your alternative does a better job of explaining and predicting. YEC and ID utterly fail to do so.<BR/><BR/>A concrete example: when oil companies want to figure out where to drill for oil, they do so using old Earth science, they don't turn to YEC theories. Why? Because the old Earth science works, and works extremely well. On the other hand, YEC is useless, because its predictions simply don't work. This is the true measure of a scientific theory: how well it fits the real world.<BR/><BR/><I>Where is the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and macro-evolution?</I><BR/><BR/>Old Earth: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html<BR/>Macro-evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc<BR/><BR/><I>Is it possible that in another 1,000 years new information could be produced that would support a younger earth or ID?</I><BR/><BR/>The validity of scientific theories is not judged on what evidence we *might* eventually obtain, but what we have now. *If* we have evidence in support of them (meaning evidence that is better explained by YEC or ID than all other alternatives), *then* they might be considered, but the current evidence simply does not support either YEC or ID, so there is no reason to consider them valid now. In the case of YEC, proponents have to first discredit all contradictory evidence, of which we have plenty, as demonstrated by the "Old Earth" link I gave above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38654685174934207982007-05-04T21:38:00.000-04:002007-05-04T21:38:00.000-04:00Once again I forgot the link to the site...ugh..ht...Once again I forgot the link to the site...ugh..<BR/><BR/>http://nwcreation.net/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45838202718610137922007-05-04T21:37:00.000-04:002007-05-04T21:37:00.000-04:00Benny, Look up this galaxy: NGC 4622It's been a w...Benny, <BR/>Look up this galaxy: NGC 4622<BR/>It's been a while since learning about the reverse spiral, I do think even a planet spinning in a different direction is just as puzzling due to momentum issues...I said I would say more about the RSG and that's the best I can do for now. <BR/>Thanks for understanding, I would like to come back to you and discuss these things in more depth and look into them again with the latest information.<BR/><BR/>Prup, <BR/>Thank you for the good wishes, I really appreciate them. I can be patient for your letter, maybe I'll write first.<BR/><BR/>I strongly disagree that there is no possibility that someone could believe in YEC. No one knows for sure. If the funding available to scientist who research macro-evolution were available to ID scientists, there might be more information.<BR/><BR/>I am not touting this site as the end all of creation science, but I think it's a good place to visit.<BR/><BR/>While many theories set forth are found to be false or at least lacking, that has been true of science throughout time and many people not in the mainstream of science have been right after being treated as fools. <BR/><BR/>No one can prove the age of the earth, there are too many variables. When I read a study or an article, I look for words and phrases such as, "as far as we know", "it looks like", "the best answer seems to be..", "observed" etc... that gives credibility to science. Unless it is something in front of our eyes that the average person can observe and draw a reasonable conclusion to, it cannot be proven...on either side.<BR/><BR/>Do you disagree? Where is the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and macro-evolution? Is it possible that in another 1,000 years new information could be produced that would support a younger earth or ID?<BR/><BR/>I'll read your comment but I've gotta stop here, I'll be looking forward to hearing from you, hope all is well with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55455555238699167632007-05-04T17:25:00.000-04:002007-05-04T17:25:00.000-04:00Yes, Calvin, which is why I don't believe in eithe...Yes, Calvin, which is why I don't believe in either. Not sure how you got the idea that I subscribed to either. Read my post again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55251522992253557562007-05-04T16:56:00.000-04:002007-05-04T16:56:00.000-04:00There is about as much evidence for a young earth ...There is about as much evidence for a young earth as there is for a flat earth. Benny seems to have joined the camp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5690788026834892592007-05-04T12:46:00.000-04:002007-05-04T12:46:00.000-04:00One Wave: As you know, my best wishes go to you f...One Wave: As you know, my best wishes go to you for the move -- and sorry I am late with the letter you are due.<BR/>But as to your question, while there is a slim chance that someone could take a scientific approach to ID -- though no one has as yet -- there is absolutely <B><I>NO</I></B> posiibility that someone could -- today -- be a YEC and a scientist. (Any more than someone could believe in a pre-Keplerian geocentric model of the Universe or -- the cliche -- a flat earth' and be a scientist.)<BR/><BR/>It is not just that there is <B>not one piece</B> of evidence that supports this, but that evidence from almost every field of science <B>disproves</B> it. (As does history and archaeology, which demonstrates the existence of peoples before the Earth is supposed to have been created.)<BR/><BR/>To use the legal terminology, it is not just that YEC is shown to be false by the 'preponderance of the evidence,' it is guilty of being fradulent 'beyond all reasonable doubt.'Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42705491148097734102007-05-04T10:49:00.000-04:002007-05-04T10:49:00.000-04:00One Wave,You owe me no apology. I've always found...One Wave,<BR/><BR/>You owe me no apology. I've always found moving to be a stressful ordeal myself. And from I hear, parenting is a full-time job and a half!<BR/><BR/>I agree, it's hard for the public to get the full picture about what's going on in science, because there seems to be a scarcity of good sources of scientific information for the laymen. If you wish to delve deeper, I can ask friends of mine who do research in various scientific fields for recommended sources for people like you and me. On the subjects of astronomy and cosmology, I heartily recommend the forum linked below. As I said, earlier, I don't believe forums to be definitive sources of information. But this forum happens to be frequented by JPL engineers, physicists, NASA researchers, professors of astronomy, physics, cosmology, astro-biology, etc., who are happy to field questions/challenges and point seekers to relevant papers and studies.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bautforum.com/<BR/><BR/>Who are the scientists that believe in ID or YEC? I might be wrong, but I don't think you'll find any, because ID and YEC are not scientific theories. This page describes the many failings of ID as *scientific* theory, which also applies to YEC:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_intelligent_design_as_science<BR/><BR/>These are just the methodological problems faced by ID and YEC. When you have time, I'd be happy to go into detail about the other problems of ID and YEC, such as faulty premises and contradictory evidence. Just say when.<BR/><BR/>Best of luck with the move!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31566424965168819312007-05-04T02:22:00.000-04:002007-05-04T02:22:00.000-04:00Benny,I'm sorry to leave you hanging. We are movi...Benny,<BR/>I'm sorry to leave you hanging. We are moving soon, a lot to do and I've got to be a mom to my kids or I would spend enormous amounts of time on here getting into more detail.<BR/><BR/>My intention is not to slam all cosmologists. I know there are many, many scientists who are honest and open to whatever they find. My overall dissatisfaction with present popular science is that there is not enough being said about how much we don't know and the public gets only part of the picture. I know it can't be helped because we live in a world of sound bites, but it is frustrating.<BR/><BR/>On your creationist points...I have read quite a bit at talkorigins. I do read outside of creationist perspective, actually I seek out all the information I can from both sides. I see dogma on both sides and it's dissapointing. Do you think that all scientists who believe in ID or YEC are not real scientists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36419822036851857282007-05-03T23:54:00.000-04:002007-05-03T23:54:00.000-04:00One Wave,I wholeheartedly agree with the quote you...One Wave,<BR/><BR/>I wholeheartedly agree with the quote you provided. However, I seriously resent, am in fact angered by your insinuation that scientific cosmologists are ignoring anomalous data or eliminating a conclusion from presupposition! You have raised numerous creationist objections to scientific cosmology. I have pointed you to various sources explaining why science does not consider those objections to be valid, due to incorrect assumptions, faulty logic, or mis-understanding/outright distortion of scientific claims. If you have arguments against any of the responses, I would be happy to hear and discuss them. But you depart without raising any valid objections, while insinuating that scientists are brushing inconvenient facts under the carpet. This is insulting both to me and to the scientific community at large.<BR/><BR/>Scientists do more to test their theories than people seem to realize, and challenge their own theories more severely than anything creationists could offer, since creationists are hamstrung by their ignorance of science. All this is done in the name of advancing human understanding, because scientists understand better than anyone else how few answers we have and how far we still have to go. So I would appreciate it if you did not baselessly accuse scientists of being dogmatic or arrogantly believing they already have all the answers.<BR/><BR/>I think if you read the discussion from the alternative science site, you will see people speculating at great length, nothing more. Science is not built on top of empty speculations, but evidence. If you can find papers offering conclusive evidence of redshift quantization, then we can talk about its implications for Big Bang.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to see you go from the discussion. It has been an enlightening exchange :) I do have a favor to ask of you: next time you read a creationist claim, do some research on your own (insert plug for talkorigins.org) to see what the scientific response is. Then you'll have more data with which to judge the validity of the claim. Take care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49980022311398709772007-05-03T23:07:00.000-04:002007-05-03T23:07:00.000-04:00Benny,I can't devote any more time to this, I'm so...Benny,<BR/>I can't devote any more time to this, I'm sorry. I really would love to spend years at a true university where we discuss from morning till night, that's my nerdy brain!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, here is a quote I am leaving you with that sums up exactly what I think....think of the recent discovery and upset over the T-Rex tissue.<BR/><BR/>" It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech: "Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage." To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo."--Barry Setterfield, March 7, 2002 <BR/><BR/>I think if you read the discussion from the alternative science site, you may see that it is not resolved, only those who believe they already have all the answers are dogmatic enough to claim something is irrelevant in science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78125035002223949472007-05-03T21:30:00.000-04:002007-05-03T21:30:00.000-04:00live-n-grace,If preaching is all you've got left, ...live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/>If preaching is all you've got left, you need not bother. After all, this is a site formed by ex-Christians (or did you not get the memo?) who are quite familiar with preaching, and have undoubtedly heard it from voices better than yours. Me, I'm an agnostic who is similarly unmoved by mere preaching. Believe we are blinded by satan if you like, as long as you stop spamming and leave the discussion to those who are actually interested in rational exchanges. Ciao :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54973311808789546232007-05-03T21:02:00.000-04:002007-05-03T21:02:00.000-04:00Correct, I wouldn't believe a muslim because when ...Correct, I wouldn't believe a muslim because when I read the Koran, I see a MAJOR difference between it and the bible.<BR/><BR/>His love through other people and the bible is UNBELIEVABLY apparent and you are blinded by yourself and satan. The story and truth of the gospel is AMAZING and brings to reality life and purpose. If you deny it then that is your choice, for God has given you free will. <BR/><BR/>The simplicity of the gospel is also amazing. The holy spirit is within me and many others, and since you are of little faith, you won't take it for an answer.<BR/><BR/>I ask you to actually read the verses in my post, and dwell on the idea that the Omnipotent God loves you so much to not only send his own son to die for you, but also to forgive you of your sins and to grant you eternal life.<BR/><BR/>There is more to this life. We were made for more than this. This is not as good as it gets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29074767938980190502007-05-03T19:34:00.000-04:002007-05-03T19:34:00.000-04:00live-n-grace,The only thing that is simple and cle...live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/>The only thing that is simple and clear is that you're out of even semi-coherent arguments and desperate. Your conviction of feeling the Holy Spirit does not show the existence of the Holy Spirit, only the existence of your feeling. Citing the Bible to prove the God of the Bible is circular and wholly unconvincing. You would not believe a Muslim were he to employ the same arguments, so why should we believe these arguments from you?<BR/><BR/>Did you read the links I gave you at 11:27 PM, May 02, 2007? I hope you did. There might be a quiz later :pAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68502319256131359412007-05-03T19:24:00.000-04:002007-05-03T19:24:00.000-04:00One Wave,From your description, the reverse spiral...One Wave,<BR/><BR/>From your description, the reverse spiral galaxies "problem" seems to be the same as the flawed "why don't all planets spin in the same direction?" argument, addressed here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html<BR/><BR/>I have to say I'm skeptical about the two sources you provided w.r.t. redshift quantization. One is a column in Analog, a science fiction magazine, and the other is a forum dedicated to "alternative science." This doesn't disprove the idea immediately, of course, but you should take everything you read there with large grains of salt.<BR/><BR/>The first link is indeed dated, as you said, and so are the two studies it cites (the 1978 and 1983 Tifft studies). As I mentioned before, more recent studies done in 2002, 2005, and 2006 on larger data sets obtained since the end of the 1990's show no evidence of redshift quantization. Please see this wikipedia article for links to the relevant studies and more information on this topic:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization<BR/><BR/><I>It would seem that these galaxies are an equal distance from the earth which would seem to put the earth at the center.</I><BR/><BR/>Ironically, the second post in your second link puts the lie to this claim right away. It's one of the bits that gets the Big Bang theory right. In brief, the expansion of the universe is not an explosion of matter flung out into existing space. Instead, it is space itself that is expanding. Think of the universe as a balloon, where each point is stationary and it is the space in between the points that is expanding. Because of this, the rate of expansion is the same between any pair of points of equal distance. *That* is why we see the same redshift value for objects at the same distance from us. It's only a mis-understanding of the expansion of the universe that leads people to believe this proves the Earth to be at the center of the universe.<BR/><BR/>Some more information on why red shift quantization is discredited:<BR/><BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#tifft<BR/><BR/>I also invite you to read the rest of the page, which contains a very good explanation of Big Bang theory and addresses common objections and mis-conceptions. I realize that I'm citing talkorigins.org quite frequently; it's because I have found it to be an invaluable source of information. If you find evidence* that proves talkorigins.org wrong on some point, I'd be happy to take it into account.<BR/><BR/>*By evidence, I mean things like published, peer-reviewed scientific papers or articles that cite such papers, not sci-fi magazine columns or forum postings by unknown users. Not trying to be snarky, just trying to clarify. I hope you understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-994773040913601372007-05-03T18:20:00.000-04:002007-05-03T18:20:00.000-04:00Colossians 1, on Jesus.15He is the image of the in...Colossians 1, on Jesus.<BR/><BR/>15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, AND IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. <BR/><BR/>There is without doubt that I know God is there, just as I breathe in air. You all want physical evidence for existence when the best evidence is spiritual. I know that God is there because of my relationship with him, that I have the Holy Spirit within me, and am able to turn to him for comfort. You can go ahead and say this "feeling is false" but if you haven't experienced it, you have nothing to say of it. That is why I will never leave the faith because once you have felt true love, and the relationship with Christ Jesus, there is no going back to the old ways.<BR/><BR/>8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. <BR/><BR/>20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.<BR/><BR/>3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.<BR/><BR/> 6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.<BR/><BR/>16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.<BR/><BR/>It is so simple and clear. I just ask you to wake up and look at the love of God, the hope and reality that is in him, and not proclaiming self knowledge and self righteousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com