Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Which it is. Newton said that a body in motion tends to remain in motion.
    When taken in context, immovable is not the same as doesn't move. It simply means that we can not change its motion.
    Bob you didn’t answer several of my questions so I’m going to take another stab at it.

    Are you seriously saying that the earth is not changing it’s motion? If so how do you explain it’s slowing down in it’s rotation speed as well as being pulled in different directions by the sun, planets, and every other object in our solar system.

    In the creation story, is the snake talking in the garden, figurative or actual?
    In the creation story, is the flaming sword figurative or actual

    You avoided answering the question Bob. If the earth is 6000 years old and the light from the explosion came from an object that is more than 6000 light years away, then according to your “evidence”, it must have been created and then immediately destroyed.

    Why was the Catholic Church right when they selected the books which are considered the word of God and not now?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bob b View Post
      Actually the particles were not moving at all! It was only the coordinates that were expanding.
      Actually the particles were moving, but space was expanding at a rapid rate.

      But the Big Bang proponents not only also believe that the expansion stopped abruptly (relatively speaking), but they also believe there are zillions of parallel universes being constantly created out of the "quantum foam".
      Do you have a problem with parallel universes?

      Big Bang proponents do not believe that. It’s just one possibility that could be happening based on the mathematical model.

      Why do you believe them? Apparently this "foam"must be their god.

      Oh, I know. They have equations that you don't understand but they must be correct since they are scientists.
      Could it be the same reason you believe you doctor when he says you need an operation? Or the same reason you believe an engineer knows enough about the science of materials to adequately design a building that will support you on the 90th floor? Of course not. Everyone knows there is a conspiracy of scientist in this field that are trying to fool everyone and Bob is our savior who can explain how they are wrong.

      But since you are all knowledgeable about cosmology, tell us what model YOU use to explain why this expansion would persist to the size of the universe today? You’ve got a lot of experimental evidence to overcome but it would be a Nobel Prize for you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hank View Post
        But since you are all knowledgeable about cosmology, tell us what model YOU use to explain why this expansion would persist to the size of the universe today? You’ve got a lot of experimental evidence to overcome but it would be a Nobel Prize for you.
        Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious? But there is no Nobel Prize awarded to explanations that replace mathematical formulas with "God did it".
        Militant Moderate

        Comment


        • Originally posted by noguru View Post
          Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious?
          I'm not so sure noguru. I haven't seen any of the creation "scientists" taking up this "stretching" of the universe to the present size in 7 days or less. It violates so much scientific evidence I don't think even the creationist want that monkey on their backs.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hank View Post
            I'm not so sure noguru. I haven't seen any of the creation "scientists" taking up this "stretching" of the universe to the present size in 7 days or less. It violates so much scientific evidence I don't think even the creationist want that monkey on their backs.
            Well that is why he wants you to throw out all these mathematical formulas that frame the evidence into the naturalistic model.
            Militant Moderate

            Comment


            • Originally posted by noguru View Post
              Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious? But there is no Nobel Prize awarded to explanations that replace mathematical formulas with "God did it".
              Of course, if someone was awarded a Nobel Prize for explanations that had no evidence backing them the prize would be pretty worthless.
              Tiger got to hunt,
              Bird got to fly
              Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why why?
              Tiger got to sleep,
              Bird got to land,
              Man got to tell himself he understand.
              -Bokonon

              Comment


              • Originally posted by noguru View Post
                Well that is why he wants you to throw out all these mathematical formulas that frame the evidence into the naturalistic model.
                Of course, then the sun could rotate around the earth. lol

                Comment

                Working...
                X