Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 23, 2009 at 1:58am

You don't understand the big bang theory, so I don't expect you to understand that either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on October 23, 2009 at 9:10am

And my point is that the Big Bang was not an explosion as you are claiming. The universe was not a giant lump of TNT that was set off.

And the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You are aware that that applies to the overall entropy of a closed system, and that even within a closed system, some areas can increase in order at the expense of an increased drop in order elsewhere, so long as the overall trend remains towards entropy?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 1:49am

i'd ask you the same question,PEACE!!!!! (about what explosion ive had 14 billion yrs to wait and observe......

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 23, 2009 at 1:58am

The observable science that we have indicates that this is the most plausible theory.

Your answer is 'since we don't know for sure, the magic man dun it.'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 3:19am

I know for sure but you wouldnt understand,as for observable science did you know that the concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing? Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enough to have existed for billions of years.Even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most?

Permalink Reply by Dave G on October 23, 2009 at 9:11am

Luis, you're making erroneous projections again. This is no different than the sun shrinking claim.

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 23, 2009 at 10:21am

Why is it creationists think that a study over a few decades immediately signifies a consistent trend of existence? Read a little real science, and find out about all the ways the globe has changed over the last 4.5 billion years.

Permalink Reply by Shine on October 20, 2009 at 8:53am

I am really struggling to pull anything substantial out of this to support your claim. Listing dozens of unnamed studies at the Royal Greenwich Observatory or U.S. Naval Observatory does not constitute proof; it is not up to me to sift through the observatories' archives to determine what you are citing. I did Google the Harvard professor mentioned, and found his obituary. I don't see anything mentioned in a recap of the man's lifework to indicate that he thought a consistent rate of solar shrinkage supported the young earth theory. Surely something that significant would have been spoken of.

Also, how does refuting the big bang hypothesis logically connect with the sun consuming itself?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by luis on October 23, 2009 at 12:36am

thanks for your comment,in "It's About Time:4.5 Billion Years"(report on symposium at Louisiana State Universitry),Geotimes,vol.23(september1978):p.18,quoting John Eddy.:"I suspect .....that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However,given some new and unexpected results to the contrary and some time for frantic adjustment,I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher's figure for the age of the earth and sun (approximately six thousand years). I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that." p.s. the comment on the big bang hypothesis was just a side comment of how unscientific it is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on October 23, 2009 at 9:12am

He also ignores that Dr Eddy retracted his claim about the shrinking sun when additional evidence was presented

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on October 20, 2009 at 10:00am

You can't dismiss a theory just because it conflicts with your faith or simply because you don't understand it. And by your statements you obviously don't understand the principles of the big bang. Learn more about it... Matt added some great info, and a video link... Here's another:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Morgan Matthew on October 20, 2009 at 11:16am

Excellent video Johnny! Very easy to understand.

• ▶ Reply

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