What good is modern science?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

There is nothing to fear but the Big Bang itse- wait wait wait. No, there is no reason to fear the Big Bang my friend. One of the supports for the Big Bang has fallen. Good old RED SHIFT is one of three supports for Big Bang (4 including evolution). The problem, though, is that this red shift may not be caused by the dopplar effect (or not fully). Why? Galaxies with different red shifts are bunched together. Problem? After billions of years these suckers would have broken up. Another is that an explosion of any size will give objects (such as gases involved) an initial velocity. The problem, though, is we see the speed of expansion SPEEDING up. Yes, you may say dark energy....but it's an epicycle (metaphorically speaking) (yes, excuses exist in modern science). These things are made up to explain the problem mentioned away. Another is order does not come from chaos, (part 2nd law of thermodynamics). Yet, a big ball of something turned into planets, stars, and our Sun (stars and sun are not used interchangably in Bible I have heard). http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook has some much better explanations....including some that I took from there. Some examples are the fact that planets can't evolve, stars found in close proximity to each other would have to be created, or the first star to form would blow the other forming stars away, and then we also find stars near black holes, which would have sucked in the gas before it formed into a star. There's more at the site mentioned. (Last one, the author at that site says that the Big Bang should have created an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, something we do not find true).

Whaddaya believe Mastermind?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I'm pretty sure the author at that site explained the rest into oblivion as well...

[Mastermind]

There is nothing to fear but the Big Bang itse- wait wait wait. No, there is no reason to fear the Big Bang my friend. One of the supports for the Big Bang has fallen. Good old RED SHIFT is one of three supports for Big Bang (4 including evolution). The problem, though, is that this red shift may not be caused by the dopplar effect (or not fully). Why? Galaxies with different red shifts are bunched together. Problem? After billions of years these suckers would have broken up. Another is that an explosion of any size will give objects (such as gases involved) an initial velocity. The problem, though, is we see the speed of expansion SPEEDING up. Yes, you may say dark energy....but it's an epicycle (metaphorically speaking) (yes, excuses exist in modern science). These things are made up to explain the problem mentioned away. Another is order does not come from chaos, (part 2nd law of thermodynamics). Yet, a big ball of something turned into planets, stars, and our Sun (stars and sun are not used interchangably in Bible I have heard). http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook has some much better explanations....including some that I took from there. Some examples are the fact that planets can't evolve, stars found in close proximity to each other would have to be created, or the first star to form would blow the other forming stars away, and then we also find stars near black holes, which would have sucked in the gas before it formed into a star. There's more at the site mentioned. (Last one, the author at that site says that the Big Bang should have created an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, something we do not find true).

Whaddaya believe Mastermind?

I believe see a whole bunch of baseless assumptions. For starters, you are assuming it was a natural process. When we include the God of the Bible in it, your entire argument falls apart. For starters, God is supposedly strertching out the Heavens. You are assuming the innitial explosion caused the big bang, and it should slow down. Here's a lesson in basic physics: it would take one granddady of an OUTSIDE source to break the gravitational hold of a singularity. The moment we discuss outside sources, this idea falls down flat. Dark matter is atheist stuff. God is christian stuff, and I dare you to dispute the fact that God couldn't have done this.

The red shift. I fail to see the problem with galaxies of different redshifts coming together. In fact, if they drifted towards each other, it explains why there is no problem.

Now, the second law of thermodynamics, again, you assume no God, so I won't even bother.

For the rest of your explanations, you do realise that celestial bodies can drift towards each other? You are making a YEC assumption that they started out that way, when we state they did not. To prove something wrong, the opposition must be unable to come up with a logical explanation. Drifting in space is not only a logical explanation, it's common sense.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You are trying to meld the Bible and popular science, correct? My assumption was that YOU were basing Big Bang on a natural process (so I refuted that).

Well, look up something called geological clocks. 100,000 years ago? Sun would have engulfed us back then due to its size. There should be no comets, they would have been destroyed after a few million years. Sun sucks in dust particles, so there should be none around after 10,000 years. I'm tired of arguing, goodnight. People can read what I read, don't have to quote the entire thing.

And when I asked what you believed, I wasn't asking for applause...I was asking what you actually believe.

[Mastermind]

The sun engulfing us?

Its diameter is 870,000 miles. The distance between the sun and earth is 93 million miles(93000000).

are you telling me the sun was 93 MILLION miles in diameter 100k years ago? how long ago do you think the sun was created?

[Deborah]

The sun engulfing us?

Its diameter is 870,000 miles. The distance between the sun and earth is 93 million miles(93000000).

are you telling me the sun was 93 MILLION miles in diameter 100k years ago? how long ago do you think the sun was created?

ppfftttt don't you know anything!
God created the sun because after creating the moon for light for bedtime reading he needed something more to keep his feet warm.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

No egghead, I'm not telling you

the sun was 93 MILLION miles in diameter 100k years ago? how long ago do you think the sun was created?

I don't believe there was that much time. YEC here. The sun is a geological clock....we know the current time, and how fast it's ticking...so going in reverse, we look how big the sun would have been however many years ago we wish to go back....and 100k years ago the sun would have been overlapping our orbit...yes, rates could have changed, and even at lower rates (instead of 5 feet lost per hour to 2 feet) the same result.

[Deborah]

Um Humpty dumpty was an egg and that don't take no mastermind to work out

[Mastermind]

The problem is, the sun would have been 7 times bigger 6000 years ago. By no means does it reach 93 million miles. People would have noticed such a massive change. Hell, even in the middle ages, the sun should have been at least twice as big as it is now. where did you get the sun's diameter reduction from anyway?

[Kurieuo]

You are trying to meld the Bible and popular science, correct? My assumption was that YOU were basing Big Bang on a natural process (so I refuted that).

Well, look up something called geological clocks. 100,000 years ago? Sun would have engulfed us back then due to its size. There should be no comets, they would have been destroyed after a few million years. Sun sucks in dust particles, so there should be none around after 10,000 years. I'm tired of arguing, goodnight. People can read what I read, don't have to quote the entire thing.

So it is alright for you to try meld the Bible and science together, but not if someone else tries to?

Yet, the shrinking sun has been largely discounted:

Shrinking Sun [OAB 94] This claim was made in 1979 by J.A. Eddy and A.A. Boornazian (Science News, v.32, no.9, pp.17-19 (Sept 1979)), who analyzed 120 years of Sun measurements from the Greenwich Observatory in London. Eddy and Boornazian claimed that these measurements indicated that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of about 2 arcseconds per century (an arcsecond is a measure of angles, equal to 1/3600 of a degree). At such a rate, the Sun would shrink down to nothing in only 200,000 years, so this shrinking obviously could not be going on steadily for several billion years. However, even if these measurements were accurate, it would not be much of a problem for scientists because it could easily be explained by a shift in the Sun's fusion process which would cause a temporary change in size. In fact, Eddy and Boornazian's research was motivated by a desire to investigate the possibility of such a shift, which is an important point, because it shows that the shrinking Sun claim was not discredited in order to "preserve evolutionary timescales." However, these measurements were in fact shown to be incorrect only a year after they were first published. I.I. Shapiro (Science, v.208, pp.51-53 (4 April 1980)) analyzed measurements of transits of the planet Mercury across the solar disk from 1736 to 1973, and showed that the size of the Sun has remained constant during that time within 0.3 arcseconds. Parkinson, Morrison, and Stephenson (Nature, v.288, pp.548-551 (11 Dec 1980)) re-analyzed the Greenwich data from 1715 onward, taking into account the changes in instrumentation over that period, changes in the transparency of the atmosphere, and differences in the person making the measurements. They showed that the uncertainty in Eddy and Boornazian's data is much too large to support their claim. Even J.A. Eddy himself was so convinced by these refutations that he never again referred in print to his research on this subject. In summary, the claim of a shrinking Sun was refuted less than a year after it was published, and should not be used as evidence for the age of the Solar System.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #shrinking

Kurieuo.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

So it is alright for you to try meld the Bible and science together, but not if someone else tries to?

*Sigh*...Why do I do this to myself....There are two ways of melding. One is subjecting the Bible to science, and the other is subjecting science to the Bible. I set up the Bible as the absolute and science as the one that can err....and I was assuming that Mastermind took the opposite side....thought science was absolute, and the Bible could err. My thoughts are sometimes very unclear...even to me once I read them. Can't wait for mastermind to make fun of me...he's got an easy target. Eventually I shall become socially competent....not soon though

[Kurieuo]

I too disagree with Mastermind's position which is amiable to macroevolutionary theories, and theistic evolution. Yet, at the same time I think as he grows in knowledge, he may see the inconsistency with God's fiat creating in Genesis (e.g., creating mankind directly from scratch), compared with God's indirect creation of humanity via evolutionary processes. I'm sure he still values Scripture as authoritative, and perhaps doesn't see himself as subjecting Scripture to popular Science opinion, but rather currently sees them as compatible based upon what he knows.

Yet, there are two issues being discussed here. One is the age of the Earth and universe. The other is God's method of creation. I would be agreeable with you that God did not simply plant a seed of life, and then allow everything to unfold through evolutionary processes. Yet, I would disagree with you on the age on the Earth and universe. My opinion is based on what I believe to be a sound exegesis of Scripture, and sound exegesis of observing the world around us within which God left His fingerprints. I believe the two sources are complementary when each one is interpreted correctly.

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

K, I never stated humans evolved from anything. My beliefs in that matter(evolution) are reserved for the rest of Earth's creatures. What I actually believe God did(i am discussing adam now) was draw together the basic elements of life from the dust of the ground. As they drew together, something similar to stem cells formed. When they were complete God gave the command that they should turn into one body that belongs to his latest creation: man. A similar transformation of energy likely occured to create Man's soul and mind. When God says He made man in His image, I assume it was the image of God's mind. Upon giving man the "breath of life", God gave Adam his soul. The interdimensional connections between the body of man and the spirit of man were created and Adam awoke.

Kmart, I set up the Bible as man's guide to salvation, not God's science text book. The few lines it gives about creation can be interpreted in hundreds of different ways without any of them being wrong. When moses wrote genesis, I highly doubt he was contracted to write and print Memphis High's Science Manual. I believe genesis is a description of what Moses saw in a vision. Feel free to disagree.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The only reference to Creation is not just the first part of Genesis. One of the obvious ones I'd like to point out is Jesus' turning the water into wine. There are probably more meanings than I know (but I doubt one was "party on dudes!"). Wine takes time to form. Years for the great stuff, probably a few months for the cheap junk. What does this show? God can make something instantly-he doesn't need to waste time and tell cells to start multiplying.

[Mastermind]

Wine isn't made ouf of water. Yes, God CAN make something instantly. That doesn't mean that He did. By this flawed logic, He shouldn't even need 6 days, He could have done it in an instant. But in either case, He didn't. Only He knows why, and only He knows the details of His creation process.