Hi BooBoo,
An amusing post, I am not a scientist, but then again neither are you, maybe you could clear up a few points for me.
From a creation scientist)
Many scientists say that truth is a relative thing (if that's true, then truth CAN BE absolute--so dont believe them).
Many scientists, do you have any particular ones in mind? You do not quote any scientists that claim this; this is a pretty amateur error on your part. Why should we believe that any scientist says this when you do not reference an example, will we take your word for it?
The thing is, every educated person, scientist or not says this, of course truth is relative, everything is relative. For example, how do you know that something is heavy if you do not have a concept of something being light? Is it true that an elephant is heavy? Well it is relatively heavy compared to a mouse, but then again it is relatively light compared to the Eiffel Tower. Therefore a truth is relative, the elephant can be both heavy and light, both observations are true, but only relatively speaking.
Yes truth can be absolute. It is true that Kent Hovind is a moron that is absolutely true. Hey, but relatively speaking could Kent be a genius! If he was compared to well say a creation scientist then Kent could be a mastermind.
You seem a bit confused, but I suppose that goes with the territory of creation science, you claim that scientists say that truth is relative, and that in your opinion that means there can be absolute truth, so we are not to believe the scientists. What do you actually mean here?
Let me give you an example that maybe you could explain to me in a way that fits your claim. A scientist invents a tablet, let us say Alexander Fleming, he discovers penicillin, now isn’t it relatively true that the penicillin will cure more people with an infection that praying to God will? So the example is, one hundred people have a serious infection, 50 take penicillin and the other 50 pray to Jesus, now I am willing to bet that the 50 that take the penicillin will have far more survivors than the 50 that pray to Jesus, so relatively speaking, it is true that penicillin is a far better cure for infections than praying to Jesus. Thus, if the scientist provides the documentation that penicillin is better at fighting infections than praying to Jesus, then we are not to believe him? I may have misunderstood your claim and, if I have, could you perhaps explain it a little clearer for me?
Okay, here's the goal, many people say that the universe is an infinite number of years old (that it's always been here).
Who says this?
But that's impossible. The universe has to have had a beginning--otherwise the second law of thermodynamics would have taken toll and there would be nothing left in the universe.
Do you have any idea what the second law of thermodynamics is about? You describe yourself as a creation ‘scientist’, yet everyone knows that creation ‘scientists’ have no idea what the second law is. Maybe you could explain in layman’s terms, because I am not a scientist, how the second law disproves an infinite universe. Oh and make sure you are accurate, and get the correct definition, as there are real scientists here who will correct you. Oh, and could you maybe put it into your own words and not cut and paste from academically redundant websites like, ICR, Dr.Dino and AiG ?
Let me explain why infinity is not possible as a real number of time:
What is a ‘real number of time’? Do you mean a real amount of time?
What is infinity minus infinity??? You'll get a contradictory statement. Example: if you subtract all the even numbers (2,4,6...infinity) from all the regular numbers (0,1,2...infinity) you get this: Infinity - Infinity = Infinity.
What is a walrus minus a walrus? No walruses. This example is puerile. You give no reason for having the premises that you use. Are 2, 4 and 6 not regular numbers, oh look 2 is an even number and a regular one. Since infinity doesn’t have a value, we then give it a ‘value’ of ‘x’, now what is ‘x’ — ‘x’?
HOWEVER, if you subtract all the numbers greater than two (3,4,5...infinity) from all the natural numbers (0,1,2...infinity) you get this: Infinity - Infinity = 3 !!!
Jesus this is absurd, are you sure you got through a university course?
Look at your example, you give no reason for starting off at the numbers greater than 2, you just pluck it out of the air. You do know that by starting at ‘3’ you have negated infinity, as you have a starting point this means that what you are working with is not ‘infinity’. You even contradict your first remark when you inform us that ‘infinity’ means that it has always been here, in your calculations you have left out the 0,1 and 2 from your first figure, so what you have is not infinity because the 0,1 and 2 should have ‘always’ been there.
Both times I subtracted the same amount from the same amount and got contradictory answers--so the universe HAD to have had a beginning if there was not an infinite number of years.
‘The same amount from the same amount,’ this is not what you are doing, you are subtracting a number that starts calculating at ‘3’ away from a number that starts with at ‘0’, these are not the same amounts, so of course you are going to have a different answer.
Now, a star blows up every 30 years or so (from what we observe)--that is called a nova or a supernova. There are only 300 remains of novas or supernovas found in the universe, based on distribution of stars and galaxies. So, if you take 30 star-deaths and multiply it by 300 dead stars, you get about 9,000 years!
Wow good maths, but very very very poor science. You are assuming that each star’s life is only 30 years longer than the one before it! Lets put our logical heads on, I know it goes against your beliefs but let us try it for a minute or two, you may enjoy the experience of having an independent thought.
Ok, I am going to accept you figures here for the sake of argument, I suspect they are probably nowhere near correct but they suffice for now.
We observe a star ‘blowing up’ every 30 years and have seen 300 of these ‘dead’ stars. Now, you calculation requires that one star ‘dies’ then 30 years later another star dies and so on, this gives a total of 9000 years. Well I have a few problems with that. Here they are:
1. First of all you seem to ignore how long the first star in your fantasy existed before it ‘blew’ up. Because we observe one ‘blowing’ up, it is very poor science to assume that the star was only 30 years old! The first star in your sequence could have been billions of years old, and I am sure it was, before it blew up.
2. You do realise that for your figure of 9000 years to be correct it requires the first star in the sequence to come into existence and ‘die’ in just 30 years?
3. You are giving different life spans to each star, after the unknown amount of years before the first star blew up, the second star existed for another 30 years, then the next one for 60 years and so on. Why should one star exist for only 30 years and another one exist for 6000 years?
4. What would happen if two stars died at the same time, will the next one live twice as long?
5. How can the universe be 9000 years old when it was created on 23rd October 4004 BCE?
A lot of people say that stars are born again but that has not been proven.
Well, John 3:3 says In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.
Although stars are a bit more rational than any born again Christian I have ever met.
But seriously, who claims this, and how can a star be ‘born’. Your post is littered with unsupported arguments. Try and cast your mind back to University, if you were ever at university, were you not required to reference anything?
stars have been here since the beginning of time, as far as we can observe.
So we have observed the beginning of time, great, maybe we can now put a date on it, what is your guess to the age of the universe? I am going with Bishop Ussher’s date of 23rd October 4004 BCE, because this is what the Bible says and if it is in the Bible it just has to be true.
Also, the law of the conservation of angular momentum disproves the big bang. That law states that all rotations from a rotating origin will maintain rotation in the same direction. In otherwords, if a bomb explodes while spinning, all the pieces that fly off will be spinning in the same direction. So, if the big bang theory is true, then why are many stars, galaxies, and planets spinning in opposite directions? Seriously, there are plenty of stars, galaxies, and planets out there that are spinning in opposite directions--the should all be rotating in the same direction IF the big bang was true.
This final part really does convince me that you really are not a scientist, although you could be a ‘creation scientist’, what is your degree in? Let me guess, you have a B.A. in Business Studies, although this does qualify you as a creation scientist, it doesn’t qualify you as a real scientist.
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the planets that you are talking about are all in out solar system, I am just guessing because I know you cretin scientists have all sorts of wonderful insights. But ask yourself this; are these planets the same age as the rest of the universe? Were these planets created at the same time as the big bang? If they weren’t, and they came into being much later and at different times, do they really need to be spinning in the same direction? The last I heard was that the Big Bang was about 14.6 billion years ago and that the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, would an event more than 10 billion years ago have any direct influence on another object after so long a time?
Anyway, if I were you I would get the Bible out and pray like mad because the real scientists here, and I repeat that I am not a scientist, are going to make you look pretty ignorant.
Just out of curiosity, what qualifications do you personally have that allows you to describe yourself as a ‘creation scientist’? I am truly interested to know because, personally, I don’t think you have the intelligence to get a job in MacDonald’s.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
™ Version 4.2
