Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dave G on May 28, 2009 at 2:03pm

9800 BCE? Nice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Brown on May 28, 2009 at 8:17pm

What would be best of course would for the archeologists to find some sort of old-testament first drafts at the site

Exodus, the story of Nigel er ... Farquar um ... MOSES!

:D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on May 28, 2009 at 9:22pm

LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 19, 2009 at 1:18am

the sun is consuming itself @ a rate of 10 miles a year(getting smaller) so if we hypothetically "backtrack" the sun would be touching the surface of the earth within millions of years not "billions" as evolution calls for, so im open to a older earth,even 15-20,000 or more but not billions ,so what do you guys think of this "scientific" evidence ,if you want the names of the scientists that agree to this and observatories let me know, theres more scientific evidence you might of never heard of,PEACE!!!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on October 19, 2009 at 1:41am

Wow, not this old canard again. Are you reading Institute for Creation Research website for ideas?

There are a number of problems with this. First, it assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. This is an unsupported assumption. We've found a cyclical rate of expansion and contraction in other stars, so it is not illogical that our star might have a similar cycle.

Also, the data that the study you are referring to (one single, solitary study, done in 1980 and not replicated since) is full of noise. We've got vague data from the past 400 years. Only data going back 150 years or so is really very reliable, and even in that range, the more recent measurements are significantly more accurate than the older ones. This data shows a basic periodicity of about 80 years. You did know that our sun is a variable star, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on October 19, 2009 at 8:54am

if you want the names of the scientists that agree to this and observatories let me know, theres more scientific evidence you might of never heard of,PEACE!!!!!!!

Do tell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 19, 2009 at 10:49am

Yes, do tell. Because I've come across them before, but don't feel like looking right now. As I recall there were only a few; and they were under-qualified or unqualified as astronomers or scientists. AND the entire astronomy and scientific community dismisses them.

They've started with their conclusion and are looking for evidence to support their conclusion. This is not how science works. Science starts with the evidence, draws up conclusions, then double-checks to see if the evidence still supports the conclusions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 20, 2009 at 1:53am

the observatories are:Royal Greenwich Observatory(dozensof independent studies )also studies done independently at the U.S. Naval Observatory suggest that the sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of six feet per hour.Dr. John a. Eddy an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian High altitude observatory in colorado(not qualified johnny??)is one of the many scientists /scientific authors that document studies that indicate the sun's shrinking rate, here's more :d.w. dunham,a.d. fiala,j.r.lesh, andrew a. snelling,Thomas g. Barnes, Harold L. armstrong,John eddy, Hilton Hinderliter, theres more but lack of time doesnt permit me to write them right now ill try to send them later,p.s. also the "big bang hypothesis" is very unscientific because an explosion always,always, always cause "disorder and chaos" not" order" also there's nothing in space to stop moving material from an explosion and then for it to then start to spin in "order" and DAVE G, no i didnt get this from ICR, EXPLOSIONS ALWAYS CAUSE DISORDER AND CHAOS NOT ORDER ,PEACE!!!!!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt on October 20, 2009 at 4:36am

"big bang hypothesis" is very unscientific because an explosion always,always, always cause "disorder and chaos" not" order" also there's nothing in space to stop moving material from an explosion and then for it to then start to spin in "order" and DAVE G, no i didnt get this from ICR, EXPLOSIONS ALWAYS CAUSE DISORDER AND CHAOS NOT ORDER ,PEACE!!!!!!!!!

First off....explosions are very organized despite what you may personally believe. Lets begin with something called forensic science which includes things such as finding the point of origins for explosions. We could not do this if explosions are "chaos", explosions expand in all directions in a very even fashion because the energy expelled from explosions goes out evenly in every direction. The materials that are effected by explosions are spread as far as the energy will take them as long as their aren't other forces acting on them.

Second...If you didn't know this, our universe is still expanding, it hasn't stopped. All matter has its own personally gravity and gravity causes matter to come together. So as our universe is rapidly expanding with all the matter rushing away from the point of singularity, they will also be attracted to each other. As time passes the energy from expansion starts to become over powered by the gravity of matter, thus allowing for things such as stars, planets, and galaxies to form.

Third....everything is not in order. Galaxies collide, stars die, black holes exist, pulsars have the ability to fry planets, and there is countless debris traveling through our universe that hits what ever is it its way. So no, once you take into account all the variables, our universe is not in order is indeed in chaos. What we have now is just what we lucked out with. Woo for us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjwF_-ydcM&feature=fvw

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 12:57am

i agree with you that explosions are very organized and that they expand in all directions in a very even fashion ..........in every direction, i agree 100% with that statement,but what im refering to is the" unscientific" assumption that "that explosion" (big bang) caused higher order and more complexity , my point of refutation is not the"how" something exploded but to the "what" the supposed explosion "produced" explosions might "explode" in a "perfectly even fashion", but when have you seen an explosion "produce" higher order and greater complexity?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 23, 2009 at 1:21am

What explosion have you had 14 billion years to wait around and observe after it happened?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 1:40am

my point is no "explosion" ever has produced higher order and greater complexity , thats just common sense, and "repeatable"scientifically,When has someone blown something up and it became more ordered and more complex? Im sure i dont need to quote you the 2nd law of thermodynamics,right brother?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page