Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 46 of 84 (3983)
02-10-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 2:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
okay i finally read all of this thread and i guess im coming to the conclusion that all of this is purely theoretical. I also think we should cut off humphreys hands and sew his mouth shut so no one will ever hear of his "crazy talk" ever again. its pretty bad when the people hes trying to support think hes a moron.

In the context of scientific use, make that "theoretical" into "hypothetical".
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 2:22 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 12:18 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 84 (3984)
02-10-2002 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Minnemooseus
02-10-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:

In the context of scientific use, make that "theoretical" into "hypothetical".
Moose

It's not even hypothetical, given the directly contradicting physics. A white hole with an event horizon, that we were inside. Not even light can escape from inside an event horizon, let alone an entire solar system!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-10-2002 12:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:54 PM mark24 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 48 of 84 (3989)
02-10-2002 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by mark24
02-10-2002 12:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
It's not even hypothetical, given the directly contradicting physics. A white hole with an event horizon, that we were inside. Not even light can escape from inside an event horizon, let alone an entire solar system!
Mark

yeah its all just crazy ideas, i doubt if it will ever be proven with tangible evidence. so maybe that is possible.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 12:18 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 1:52 PM KingPenguin has replied
 Message 76 by graedek, posted 12-25-2002 4:33 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 84 (3998)
02-10-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 12:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yeah its all just crazy ideas, i doubt if it will ever be proven with tangible evidence. so maybe that is possible.

KP,
The problem is, when tangling with well supported scientific theories, in this case the Big Bang, is that you have to "undo", or reinterpret a huge body of supporting evidence. So, unless this theory can explain away cosmic microwave radiation, relativity etc, it has NO chance of being proven. Now, I agree with "never say never", but it is a vanishingly small chance that relativtity is going to be disproven, after many predictions have been born out.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:54 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 4:31 PM mark24 has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 50 of 84 (4011)
02-10-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
02-10-2002 1:52 PM


yeah i dont see the theory of relativity being disproven anytime soon.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 1:52 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 51 of 84 (4090)
02-11-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by wj
02-08-2002 8:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Peter, I don't want to send this thread off at a tangent. Let me say that you have padded up to Warnie like Gatting without realising you've been clean bowled. Or, you've scored an own goal.
I was simply providing information on Humphreys' background and his other ventures into "evidence" against evolution and an old earth.
I've noticed that, as well as engineers and physicists offering gratuitous advice on evolutionary science, there now appears to be a flood of computer scientists. Great to see such interdisciplinary interaction. It seems that biology, genetics, molecular biology, geo;ogy etc. are percieved to be lower on the pecking order and therefore physicists can offer insights which biologists etc. have been too dumb to realise. Or are certain disciplines more prone to egotripping?
Back to the white hole thingy.

Not sure where computer scientists come into it, but ...
My intent here was, since it appeared you had pointed out this information in an attempt to support Humphrey's credentials in
the area of young earth 'proof' I felt it relevant to point
out, after having had the courtesy to read his 'evidence for
a young earth', that he is blantantly ignoring the obvious
AND mis-representing/omitting information to make his statements
sound more beleivable.
That being the case it seems reasonable to assume that he is
willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to try to
convince HIMSELF of something that he personally should take
on faith.
BTW how so an own goal ? Is providing refutation of young earth evidence NOT somehow intricately involved in this debate ?
After all, if there is no current evidence for a young earth,
then what's the point of talking about a hypothetical dense
time region ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 8:06 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 02-11-2002 10:34 PM Peter has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 84 (4178)
02-11-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Peter
02-11-2002 5:33 AM


Peter, you misunderstand my position.
I give no credence to Humphreys, his white hole thingy postulation or his other arguments and "evidences" for a young earth creation. I simply made available information on the man and instances of other writings or arguments of his, if readers were not aware of the "quality" of his thinking.
I commented on the propensity of creationists with one recognised qualification eg. Humphreys in physics, Plaisted in computer science, Gish in biochemistry, to pontificate and offer creationist rebuttal to specialists in other areas. Plaisted, for example, offers "expert" comment on geology and genetics to guide the deluded evolutionist specialists, and to reassure the faithful.
I think we're only fighting amongst ourselves because the creationists seem to have left the party early. Was it a strategic withdrawal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 5:33 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by joz, posted 02-11-2002 10:46 PM wj has not replied
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 5:55 AM wj has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 84 (4181)
02-11-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by wj
02-11-2002 10:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Was it a strategic withdrawal?
More like a full blown realization by JP that he was in for an ass whoopin and a nagging concern over Humphrys sanity from the others....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 02-11-2002 10:34 PM wj has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 54 of 84 (4202)
02-12-2002 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by wj
02-11-2002 10:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Peter, you misunderstand my position.
I give no credence to Humphreys, his white hole thingy postulation or his other arguments and "evidences" for a young earth creation. I simply made available information on the man and instances of other writings or arguments of his, if readers were not aware of the "quality" of his thinking.

Oh .... sorry
Got the wrong end of the stick there ... is there a young earth forum
I could tackle ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 02-11-2002 10:34 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by wj, posted 02-12-2002 7:08 PM Peter has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 84 (4294)
02-12-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peter
02-12-2002 5:55 AM


Peter, there doesn't seem to be a specific young earth creation thread current at the moment.
Maybe you could use one of Humphreys' "evidences" for a young earth as the start of a new thread and see if it attracts apologists. It you tried to post all of them, the discussion might get very wide-ranging and disconnected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 5:55 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:50 PM wj has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 56 of 84 (4320)
02-12-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by wj
02-12-2002 7:08 PM


god created the heavens before earth and earth before man, thats why we can see starlight and why there are fossils from before man. the days of creation were just meant to make things more comprehendible and to create a sabbath day, so that we had some resting time.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by wj, posted 02-12-2002 7:08 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:06 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 84 (4323)
02-12-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:50 PM


It would be helpful if you read the thread first. This is a thread concerning a specific scientific claim made by Humphreys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:50 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:17 PM lbhandli has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 58 of 84 (4329)
02-12-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 11:06 PM


yeah well he brought up YEC, i told him how it is.
also you should read more of the thread, ive posted here before.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:06 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:23 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 84 (4334)
02-12-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:17 PM


And you haven't contributed to it substantively. Now what is your take on the theory? Do you understand how fusion takes place at singularity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:17 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by joz, posted 02-13-2002 10:17 AM lbhandli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 84 (4387)
02-13-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 11:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
And you haven't contributed to it substantively. Now what is your take on the theory? Do you understand how fusion takes place at singularity?
Given that he posted this earlier I doubt he is going to debate the validity of this theory with you:
"okay i finally read all of this thread and i guess im coming to the conclusion that all of this is purely theoretical. I also think we should cut off humphreys hands and sew his mouth shut so no one will ever hear of his "crazy talk" ever again. its pretty bad when the people hes trying to support think hes a moron."-KP
While I don`t agree with the proposed mutilation his opinion of Humphrys theory is pretty clear.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:23 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024