Posted on 12/04/2007 11:44:21 PM PST by Plutarch
Well then you are calling God Himself, Christ, Peter, Paul, King Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel etc., illusionists, they all penned in various writings about three different heaven and earth ages.
Who dried up that hot steaming primordial soup bowl that hatched that first cell? I sure have never read of its discovery in any state.
What am I missing? He asserts that the Big Bang was a white hole, the opposite of a black hole. That the Universe was created from the outside inwards and that the reason the earth is only 10,000 years old is because it has been traveling at relativistic speeds while the rest of the universe has been traveling much slower and thus aging much faster.
What have I got wrong?
Bowls of soup dry up naturally on their own. Tracing cell types backwards clearly points to a single cell that started out in a simple form and has differentiated and become more complex. It is really more appropriate to talk about life in terms of cells because that is what we really are, a bunch of cells working together.
No, the only Earth ages mentioned are before and after the flood. Many have attempted to stretch those descriptions into an old Earth in a quest to be one with the darkness of secular academia, but the Lord cautioned us not to do that. He told us to be Holy, and that means to be 'set apart' from the world. Those that would unite us with the world are the illusionists.
And no, he definately does not say that it was created "from the outside inwards;" he clearly describes a sphere of liquid water as being the beginning state of all matter. Further, he does not have the Earth in any motion other than local angular motion, because it is at or near the center of the original mass. It is the rest of the universe, expanded away from the Earth, that creates an illusion of overall great age. That is to say, that space itself is expanding, or possibly expanded in the past but now being constant in size, not just objects moving apart in space. Humphries' universe is also necessarily bounded, and surrounded by water.
And no, he definately does not say that it was created "from the outside inwards;" he clearly describes a sphere of liquid water as being the beginning state of all matter. Further, he does not have the Earth in any motion other than local angular motion, because it is at or near the center of the original mass. It is the rest of the universe, expanded away from the Earth, that creates an illusion of overall great age. That is to say, that space itself is expanding, or possibly expanded in the past but now being constant in size, not just objects moving apart in space. Humphries' universe is also necessarily bounded, and surrounded by water.
I am sorry : ) That is such a pile of nonsense that I hardly know where to begin. So I guess I will start at the top.
First of all a White hole is certainly not a sphere of water. Angular motion is not relativity type speed so relativistic effects would not apply, so Russell starts by contradicting himself. Now if space itself was expanding faster than the speed of light we would still have to wait for the speed of light to reach us and the universe would appear much younger than it does and the earth would be much older than it is.
Now if the universe is bounded by water is the water infinite?
You seem to choose to live in darkness.
God’s word says that it was water, and Humphreys’ equations (that stand unrefuted to this moment) find no fault with that fact.
And no, the water at the boundary is not infinite.
Some things never change.
Yes, you are indeed a deep dreamer!
Who buys your smack for you? (I know that you couldn’t possibly afford it on your own)
Forgive me for laughing : ) Unrefuted? Angular momentum is not relativistic. So therefore the Earth is not going at relativistic speeds and his whole premise collapses.
Do you really think that the entire Universe is surrounded by water? Have you ever heard of F=GMm/r2?
You cannot grasp that the universe was expanded at light speed, or greater, equally in all directions,and that God created the Earth at the center of that expanse? That the vast distances that we now observe didn’t exist one day, and the next they did?
Or is this a case of deliberate lack of understanding because all you can do is offer comical nonsequitur in response to something that destroys your desired premise?
Of course I can grasp the concept of FTL travel. Are you also claiming that after God placed these suns out at vast distances that he again sped up the speed of light so that we could see them without waiting billions of years?
You don't seem to have a basic understanding of the the theory of relativity. Lets see if you do understand it a little bit. If you have two flash lights pointed 180 degrees apart and turn them on how fast are those two beams of light separating from each other?
Or is this a case of deliberate lack of understanding because all you can do is offer comical nonsequitur in response to something that destroys your desired premise?
I think what we need is to come to a basic understanding about how the universe that we are in operates. Lets start with the simple stuff. Do you agree with the laws of Thermodynamics, Newtons gravitational laws, Schrodinger's equation, Maxwell's equations and the theory of relativity? If you don't then why not?
But this proves that you are not grasping. The light from the stars was expanded along with the space in which it was propagated. This is exactly why the appearance of great age is illusion from the Earthly point of reference. It all took place in the time that God's word said it did, and the stars are really as distant as they appear to be, but from our frame of observation, which is the only frame of observation relevant to God's word, it really was no more than 10K years ago.
When did the dinosaurs live and die within those last 10,000 years? How fast did the continents move? How fast did life evolve and spread over the face of the earth? Where and when did austrolopithicine live? You live in a very magical and interesting universe, and yet somehow I am the one hooked on smack? Ahhhh laughter really is good for the soul.
You want some more laughter? Here is a good one for you.
Creationist "John Woodmorappe" (John Woodmorappe is the nom de propaganda of Jan Peczkis, a high school teacher) wrote the following:
No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel. [Source]He didn't have a clue. As pointed out by a Darwin Central blog:
Creation "science" -- the gift of laughter!
I asked you two simple questions which you seem unwilling or unable to answer. What is the separation speed of the two beams of light from the two flashlights and do you agree or disagree with the basic physics principles namely, Newtons and Einsteins theories?
So once again are you unwilling or unable to answer those questions?
It all took place in the time that God's word said it did, and the stars are really as distant as they appear to be, but from our frame of observation, which is the only frame of observation relevant to God's word, it really was no more than 10K years ago.
Are you saying that light travels faster than 300,000 meters per second? Because that is what you seem to be saying. Or do you think that all of the stars are the same distance from the earth except that the light is traveling at different speeds to get here? All I am asking for is a consistent logical answer or simply call it a miracle for which there is no rational explanation. You choose : )
Your questions were irrelevant to the discussion, and thus were a diversion. As to my agreement, Newton is fine as long as it is used within it's limits. In everyday life it is perfect. Einstein did leave a few holidays in his GR, but nobody has really established anything well enough to get everyone on board with them in rewriting it, so what point is there in discussing it? The two beams of light depend on point of reference. The opposing directions establish event barriers between them, but algebraically at the flashlights they are separating at 2C. One has to be using the beams to transfer information before the question gets sticky.
Austrolopithicine must have become extinct within the last 3000 years. Many of the dynos are still here. Plesiosaurus is still in the Pacific ocean, as is coelacanth. Pterosaurs still fly in New Guinea, and lapidodendron still grows there. Many species of dynos were alive during the period that the Inca dominated South America, as is proven by the engraved images on stones found there.
Keep throwing wet blankets on the fire; your smoke screen is beautiful!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.