21 Sep 14
I went eenie meenie miney moe and put this in the science forum instead of spirituality. 😉
This webpage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140919083847.htm?utm_content=buffer9626f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
says, "The Milky Way hasn't merged with another large galaxy for a long time but you can still see remnants of all the old galaxies we've cannibalized."
It also has photos of galaxies in the process of colliding.
How do religious fundamentalists handle this?
21 Sep 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIThey don't. The literalists who insist on a 6 to 10 thousand year old earth have no good explanation as to how light has got to us from objects further away than a couple of kiloparsecs, never mind intergalactic distances. They just deny the evidence, to the point that some will deny heliocentric models of the solar system.
I went eenie meenie miney moe and put this in the science forum instead of spirituality. 😉
This webpage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140919083847.htm?utm_content=buffer9626f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
says, "The Milky Way hasn't merged with another large galaxy for a long time but you can still ...[text shortened]... photos of galaxies in the process of colliding.
How do religious fundamentalists handle this?
23 Sep 14
1 edit
I'm a creationist but I also do not deny what is seen out in the universe and with the distances which puts me at odds at times with fundamentalists such as RJ but one can't deny what is seen and observed and the science behind it. I know some creationist have tried to come up with models that fit what we see and yet cram it into a literal 6K time frame problem is from what I understand all of known physics would have to be changed to accommodate some of these models ........
Manny
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71We have seen the small amount of changes in places like the Grand Canyon and we have about 150 years of watching, drawing, taking pictures and so forth. That represents 2 1/2 percent of the time going back to 4000 BC with very little change in that amount of time. If you project what we already know about those changes then YEC's have to come up with a way where all that happened in a few months or so without destroying the Earth in the process.
I'm a creationist but I also do not deny what is seen out in the universe and with the distances which puts me at odds at times with fundamentalists such as RJ but one can't deny what is seen and observed and the science behind it. I know some creationist have tried to come up with models that fit what we see and yet cram it into a literal 6K time frame pro ...[text shortened]... of known physics would have to be changed to accommodate some of these models ........
Manny
Or the spread of continents, the magnetic record is in the magma coming to the surface, measurable for hundreds of thousands of years into the past, YEC's have to figure how that could possibly jive with a literal 6000 year old Earth.
They also have to come up with a way to rationalize looking at ice core data that also now goes back over 100,000 years, with such rationalizations as, you don't know anything about the past, or, you can't count ice rings because more than one can happen in a year. (Even if it were TEN rings happening per year, it would still go back 10,000 years, WAY past the time the Earth was supposed to come into existence.
And tree ring data goes back over 10,000 years.
Not to mention dinosaur fossils, which YEC's say were around when men were around, based on the chance occurrence of human footprints inside dinosaur footprints, touted as proof humans and dino's lived side by side, ignoring any data showing the dino prints were literally millions of years old and the humans just walked on 100 million year old footprints when there was mud on the ground, all that doesn't matter a whit to YEC's, it is proof to them.
It just goes to show how supposedly intelligent people can be totally duped and too dam stubborn to admit it. EVER.
Originally posted by menace71nonsense! Real science is NOT religion by any sane definition. I have no religion thank you.
I agree keep in scientific but origins / cosmology do kinda go hand in hand with some kinda of spiritual jive as even the most scientific minded individual is curious as to how it all began .....humans are religious by nature and everyone has some from of religion even if it is purely science
Manny
25 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71Scientific minds are curious about everything. That is what science is all about - satisfying curiosity with facts. Religion is about satisfying curiosity with fairy tales. Bad things start to happen when you start to believe the fairy tales are facts.
......even the most scientific minded individual is curious as to how it all began .....
25 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71There is a Forum specifically intended for the spiritual debate. Keep spiritual matters there. Don't bring religious discussions here
I agree keep in scientific but origins / cosmology do kinda go hand in hand with some kinda of spiritual jive as even the most scientific minded individual is curious as to how it all began .....humans are religious by nature and everyone has some from of religion even if it is purely science
Manny
Science plays with totally another sets of rules than any religion. So let us keep Science Forum scientific.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe only reason anything religious was brought into this was because of sonhouse's statement there and I said not all creationist buy into YEC / literal 6K years and that was all. Not trying to preach or say anything beyond that. I believe the universe is very old. I also respect sonhouse's statements and many things that he puts in the science fourm .......everyone is religious however and I bet that can be proven scientifically LOL
I can see them now, 'Wow, SO much happening in just 6000 years'!
Manny
PS the OP is a challenge to religious folk LOL
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by menace71You're right. Someone introduced religion into this thread.
The only reason anything religious was brought into this was because of sonhouse's statement there and I said not all creationist buy into YEC / literal 6K years and that was all. Not trying to preach or say anything beyond that. I believe the universe is very old. I also respect sonhouse's statements and many things that he puts in the science fourm ...... ...[text shortened]... at can be proven scientifically LOL
Manny
PS the OP is a challenge to religious folk LOL
Whenever we use an anti-religion argument in a thread in Scientific Forum, then we at the same time invite a pro-religion argument. The result will be that we start the evolution/creation debate again. Let's not do this.
Let us all keep the Scientific Forum free from religious discussions.