Not according to the polls. Not even in America, according to most polls.
Saint Augustine was a "spin artist?" You have a special very special imagination, bob.:rotfl:
Best Evidence for Evolution.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Not according to the polls. Not even in America, according to most polls.
Saint Augustine was a "spin artist?" You have a special very special imagination, bob.:rotfl:
Evoken
New member
Or St. Thomas.
Yes, they were the inspiration of many of the false doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Augustine was a late comer to the Christian faith, having been brought up, as many did in his time, in the knowledge of the Greeks. His mentor introduced him to the concept that Greek philosophy and Christianity were compatible, and thus with that in mind Augustine was able to accept scripture and become a Christian.
Unfortunately this allowed false Greek ideas to become part of Christian theology.
The same trend continues today with people able to reconcile the false doctrine of long ages and gradual evolution from a primitive protocell to replace the clear teaching of a six day creation and a global flood.
Evoken
New member
I will not get into a debate with you over Catholicism. But about this bit, I'll say this much, as someone who is currently struggling to find his way back to The Church, your words and attitude are of no help, on the contrary, they are an obstacle. It is people like you, with their either/or mentallity and close mindeness that drive others away.
I am glad I know better now and can ignore people like you when it comes to this.
Evo
The truth frequently hurts, but it is better to have a balanced view of the Christian religion and realize that many false and/or misleading doctrines have crept into all Christian denominations over the years.
The best antidote for this is to read the Bible yourself instead of being totally dependent on others for your views.
Augustine and others in the church have made great contributions, but being mere men they were not infallible. The same is true today and will continue to be true tomorrow. The view that anything in scripture that does not agree with current science should be considered an allegory is a false doctrine, because scientific views change over time whereas scripture never changes and eventually turns out to have been true. I have seen many examples of this in my lifetime.
Today, many denominations are moving to accept the false doctrine of neoDarwinism and in the process allegorizing scripture to make it "fit" with the current views of men. God warned people not to do this.
----------
You say that you are struggling to find your way back. Your struggle is with yourself and every human's desire to be in charge of one's own direction in life.
You will not truly find your "way back" in any meaningful way until you surrender to God and voluntarily allow Him to talk charge of the direction your life will take in the future. Only then will you understand "the truth that will set you free".
Reason will not help you to do this.
It is not easy to give up control.
Evoken
New member
Thanks for your post. I don't agree with everything you said, but as I said in my previous post, I am not really going to get into a debate with you about this.
Evo
The rate of radioactive decay does not depend on the speed of light.
Some of the decay radiations travel at the speed of light, i.e. gamma
radiation. Other radiations, such alpha particles, travel at lower speeds
dependent upon the kinetic energy of the particle.
Sorry, try something else.
Perhaps you are right, but I can't help being curious as to what evidence you could cite to support your assertion.
Andre1983
New member
Unless time itself has been sped up -- which is pointless, as an accelerated time does nothing to anyone but the outsider -- all radioactive materials will decay normally.
Time is the only triggering factor; pressure or different speed of light cannot help.
The nucleus of C-14 emits a proton and becomes Na-14 when it's ready and not a second before.
It is the structure of the atom that is unstable, and light (photons) have nothing to do with the stability of atoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity
The same goes for uranium salts etc. -- which is very handy in order to date the earth as it has a decay time of 4 billion years for isotope 238 (238 neutrons in the core) and 700 million years for uranium isotope 235 and...
Just read about uranium-dating; carbon-dating's big brother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-uranium_dating
(Of course -- there's more variants...)
Time is the only triggering factor; pressure or different speed of light cannot help.
The nucleus of C-14 emits a proton and becomes Na-14 when it's ready and not a second before.
It is the structure of the atom that is unstable, and light (photons) have nothing to do with the stability of atoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity
The same goes for uranium salts etc. -- which is very handy in order to date the earth as it has a decay time of 4 billion years for isotope 238 (238 neutrons in the core) and 700 million years for uranium isotope 235 and...
Just read about uranium-dating; carbon-dating's big brother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-uranium_dating
(Of course -- there's more variants...)
If the rapid expansion of the universe can cause the speed-of-light to have an effect speed millions of times greater than its current speed (now that the expansion has ceased), I see no reason why the same cannot be true for radioactive decay. Certainly, the rapid expansion would be bound to have an effect on an unstable element. So you may be correct that the speed of light does not directly affect radioactive decay rate, but that would not prevent the speed of light from being one of the parameters in the equation which determines the decay rate.
It is true that radioactive decay (weak force) is dependent on the speed of light. Hence, any significant increase in the speed of light would entail enough radiation to fry any living thing.
This seems a major flaw in bob's doctrine.
This seems a major flaw in bob's doctrine.
Living things had not been created as yet when God was rapidly expanding the universe. And of course in my view once the universe had reached its current size the expansion ceased.
When Big Bang promoters claim that the speed of light during the inflationary period was millions of times its current speed, they hasten to explain that it was the "effective" speed only, because the expansion is in the coordinates of space only, and physical objects are actually not necessarily moving at all (it is the space between them that is expanding). This is hard to visualize, but is what the Big Bangers are claiming.
Thus the "red shift" that occurs is not a "velocity red shift" but instead is an "expansion red shift".
If I am not mistaken, the article on Wikipedia does mention this.
Sorry, not possible. We can see the red shift in galaxies well under a billion years old, and life has been here for longer than that; a lot longer. If you claim that it was actually a shorter time, that doesn't save you, because these are relative ages, and they would be both shorter.
But that's not what we see, either. And if so, then we should be seeing unbelievable amounts of radiation everwhere we look. And it's not there.
Actually it hasn't because the increasing mutation rate due to the decline of the Earth's magnetic field would have made everything extinct by now. Thousands not billions is more reasonable.
Yes, the idea of long ages for life is also bogus.
No, because there is no reason there should be. This is again a misunderstanding of yours and many of your sources at talk.origin.
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Sorry, not possible. We can see the red shift in galaxies well under a billion years old, and life has been here for longer than that; a lot longer.
You mean "fluctuation." It changes over time, but it's been both stronger and weaker in the past, at different times.
Boy, that's an original idea. Let's see your reasoning and evidence.
Not according to the physicists, geologists, radiochemists, etc.
Barbarian points out:
If you claim that it was actually a shorter time, that doesn't save you, because these are relative ages, and they would be both shorter.
Nope. But your notion that "the radiation all happened before there was life" sure is. We see traces of living things at the same time you want us to believe the speed of light was changing. Not possible.
Barbarian observes:
But that's not what we see, either. And if so, then we should be seeing unbelievable amounts of radiation everwhere we look. And it's not there.
Perhaps you can explain the conflict then.
Sorry, not possible. We can see the red shift in galaxies well under a billion years old, and life has been here for longer than that; a lot longer.
You mean "fluctuation." It changes over time, but it's been both stronger and weaker in the past, at different times.
Boy, that's an original idea. Let's see your reasoning and evidence.
Not according to the physicists, geologists, radiochemists, etc.
Barbarian points out:
If you claim that it was actually a shorter time, that doesn't save you, because these are relative ages, and they would be both shorter.
Nope. But your notion that "the radiation all happened before there was life" sure is. We see traces of living things at the same time you want us to believe the speed of light was changing. Not possible.
Barbarian observes:
But that's not what we see, either. And if so, then we should be seeing unbelievable amounts of radiation everwhere we look. And it's not there.
Perhaps you can explain the conflict then.
Nope, 6000 years, possibly 7000 is just about it.
Nope the only direct measurement done on a global basis at the same short time period shows rapid decay. The idea of a "generator" within the Earth is a bogus idea.
Nope. You are totally confused.
I think it is quite bold of you to claim you know all the effects that would have taken place on the day that God "stretched out the heavens". Were you there taking measurements by any chance?
You are saying that your literal interpretation of the Bible is what God said and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. The Bible also states that the earth is immovable and on a foundation, that the sun stopped in the sky and that you can see the entire earth from the top of a mountain. You are very selective in which parts you want to say is literal and which parts you want to say is figurative.
No I’m saying your interpretation of the Bible makes God out to be a liar since either your interpretation of the Bible is a lie or the evidence he created is a lie. They can’t both be true according to your interpretation. That makes your definition of God to be a liar, not the actual God of the universe.
It’s hard to get past your arrogance of believing that your interpretation of what God did is the only valid one. I’m not blaming God for evil, I’m blaming your interpretation of what God said as being false
Meaning you have to twist and contort the evidence and ignore most of it to fit what you believe.
It must be pretty difficult since it has changed over time. Not that long ago, the sun stopping in the sky was not taken as figurative and neither was the earth resting on a foundation. In fact there are some Christians that still believe that.
When I ask you “So if we see a star exploding that shows to be more than 6000 light years away from us, or however old you think the universe is, was it created during the 6 days and then blown up right after that or when did it explode? Then your answer was: “I have no idea, because there is no way of telling what the rate of expansion might have been or whether it is still continuing today. “
Yet you turn right around and explicitly state “(now that the expansion has ceased)”. You change your response dependent on the question and what best will suit your argument.
No, I accused you of interpreting the Bible incorrectly which makes your belief a deception. You have difficulty separating your interpretation of the Bible from what God says.
The same Catholic Church that you say selected which books are the word of God. Why were they right at one time but not at another?
And God has appointed you to point out to the ignorant masses which false doctrines have crept into all the Christian denominations over the years?
I do, and I get a totally different interpretation than you do. So which is right?
Were they infallible when they were selecting the books of the Bible?
Scripture never changes, literalist interpretation of the Bible does change.
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.
The crust is overlying the foundation. See www.creationscience.com
I believe in relative motion and hence that Joshua's Long Day was an observable fact. The second element in the story was the destruction of the enemy army by hot rocks from heaven, an obvious reference to meteorites, which typically follow the path of comets and other heavenly bodies.
I use common sense. A short phrase can be figurative but extended narratives like creation week and the Flood are not "figurative". Call that selective, but that is a good thing when we use common sense.
Evidence does not either lie or tell the truth. It is people who interpret the evidence that can be in error. You do not consider that it may be you and your evolutionary friends who are interpreting the evidence in error.
Wrong. Your interpretation of the evidence is where the fault lies.
And of course I insist that it is your interpretation that is false. How can you be so arrogant as to think you are right and God is wrong?
I don't do that, but you do have to twist and contort scripture so as to fit the false ideas of men. Shame on you.
As I pointed out above briefly there is good reason to believe it.
I gave a truthful answer. However, one might speculate that if the expansion was completed on the first day then all of the events we are seeing today took place in the past (which is always true anyway).
I change depending on the context. In the first case I remarked that one cannot verify a speculation scientifically. In the second case I stated what I believe happened (without the qualfication).
On the contrary, the Bible is clear: it is your attempt to make it fit with the current fallible manmade theory that is wrong.
One can read them (included those rejected) and decide for oneself. I think they did an adequate job. Which ones do you disagree with? and why?
I do my best. :chuckle:
Me of course.
Judge for yourself. I have.
Ditto for those who twist scripture to fit current manmade dogma. During my lifetime the trend has consistently been against the critics, because evidence always surfaces to prove them wrong and the Bible being right all along.
The Big Bang rapid expansion of the coordinates of space (God stretching out the heavens) has inadvertently provided the answer to how we can see faraway stars in a yound universe. It may also explain how the rocks can be dated radiometrically at billions of years when they only were created on the first day of creation just a few thousand yeras ago.
Science marches on (and leaves the fallible theories of men in shambles in its wake).
:rotfl:
Evoken
New member
So, are you saying that the age we get when we date the rocks (billions of years) is accurate, even tho, you believe that it is young? On what grounds?
Evo
What I am saying is that the amount of daughter element in the rocks is being correctly measured. But the inference that this must mean it took a certain length of time for that to happen is not necessarily correct, because it assumes that this would be the case only today.
This is the same confusion that makes people think that just because stars are billions of light years away must mean that the light started out billions of years ago.
In both cases the effect of a rapid expansion of the coordinates of space has not been factored in.