Originally posted by sonhousethank you.
We can measure the parallax of a star directly, the hiparcos satellite has already done that for thousands of stars and newer ones coming up will make even finer measurements meaning it measures stars ever farther away from earth. When the Earth goes round the sun, if you take a pic of a star and then do it again 6 months later you have a triangulation base ...[text shortened]... comes into play, just the apparent movement of the star by the earth's rotation around the sun.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesand what's the sea analogous to?
Imagine a circular island of radius 10 miles, with a golf cart factory at the center.
Suppose upon arriving at this island, you observe a golf cart at the edge of the island.
You hop in, drive it about, and note that it only moves at the speed of 1 mile per hour.
Figure out a lower bound on the age of the golf cart.
If it was created at t ...[text shortened]... is analogous to observers of starlight on earth.
And the island is analogous to the universe.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you believe that once life started it changed through evolution
Both of your statements are false. Therein lies your confusion about science being a faith.
I'm willing to evaluate any new evidence concerning the age of the universe, and I'm willing to revise my beliefs in light of it. I have no emotional, social or permanent commitment to my scientific beliefs. They are nothing more than a reflection of the ...[text shortened]... s old.
Provide enough such evidence to tip the scales, and my belief will naturally follow.
and life went from its simpler beginnings to the variety we see
today?
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, I believe that is the best explanation in light of the currently available evidence.
Do you believe that once life started it changed through evolution
and life went from its simpler beginnings to the variety we see
today?
Kelly
Do you believe that man was literally molded from the clay of the earth, and that God literally breathed into his nostrils?
Which theory would you characterize as having the weight of the evidence in its favor?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI do not call God doing anything a theory but a matter of faith!
Yes, I believe that is the best explanation in light of the currently available evidence.
Do you believe that man was literally molded from the clay of the earth, and that God literally breathed into his nostrils?
Which theory would you characterize as having the weight of the evidence in its favor?
It is completely a matter of faith since that like many things that
God did that were special unique supernatural singular events,
they are not provable right or wrong, they either are accepted
or rejected. Yes, I believe that to not avoid your question!
Yes, I believe that is the best explanation in light of the currently
available evidence.
Okay, an honest statement, as you understand the best explanation
in light with our current available evidence, what about it seems
most reasonable for you that makes you believe it?
Kelly
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhich theory would you characterize as having the weight of the evidence in its favor?
Yes, I believe that is the best explanation in light of the currently available evidence.
Do you believe that man was literally molded from the clay of the earth, and that God literally breathed into his nostrils?
Which theory would you characterize as having the weight of the evidence in its favor?
Give some to choose from.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThe two already in play:
Give some to choose from.
Kelly
1) Once life started it changed through evolution and life went from its simpler beginnings to the variety we see today
2) Man was literally molded from the clay of the earth, and God literally breathed into his nostrils.
If you don't wish to characterize (2) as a theory, let us call them both explanations, or beliefs, or any term that you are comfortable with.
Whatever you call them, which would you characterize as having the weight of the evidence in its favor?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you had actually looked at the site it would have explained how the measurement was done. A light is pointed at a mirror 8 kilometers away. The time it takes for the light to go and come back is large enough that it could be be measured directly and accurately as long ago as 1849. Where do you get your 'off by more than a billion times' from? And what is a clock if not a means of measurement? I dont think you understand even basic physics. And why is it not factual?
I'm going to have to go over this some more, but I now have
doubts about what is believed to be the speed of light.
1849 was light actually measured, and with what? How fast they
thought it was going? We are talking about speed here, reaction
time is everything if he or we are off ever so slightly the
measurement of light could be off as much as a ~b more than a calculation the whole thing isn't as
factual as you seem to think it is.
Kelly
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOkay
The two already in play:
1) Once life started it changed through evolution and life went from its simpler beginnings to the variety we see today
2) Man was literally molded from the clay of the earth, and God literally breathed into his nostrils.
If you don't wish to characterize (2) as a theory, let us call them both explanations, or belief ...[text shortened]... you call them, which would you characterize as having the weight of the evidence in its favor?
Once life started "how and when" was it witnessed, was it
recorded, can there be a test that shows the how and why?
Is the creation story, up against another story, another
possible explanation, this other explanation can it be shown
to be true or false? Are we left putting our faith in a story
no matter which way we turn?
What is creation being matched against?
Evolution is a process that only manages to come along after
life started does it not? There supposedly wasn't any guiding
force directing life to become more complex, there supposedly
wasn't a guiding force causing life to survive, there wasn't a
guiding force doing anything. So within the universe you live
in, when things are left alone, do they generally become
more functionally complex or do they fall apart?
The creation story suggests God put life on this planet fully
developed, and had everything reproduce after their own kind.
When you look at life today, what do you see? Do you see
life mutating and changing into other forms of life, I don't!
Has anyone ever seen life mutating and changing into other
forms of life as a worm like creature in size, turning into
a dog or a blade of grass? Do you see lizards mating with
oak trees? I don't, everything seems to be running alone
just as scripture said, accept you have to believe in God to
accept it, otherwise you are left with having to have someone
make up a believable story that is fairly reasonable, since it
cannot be proven wrong you can call it hypothesis or even
a theory, to make it scientific and palatable to the atheistic
mind.
What evidence do you have for life beginning simply and
through time becoming more complex?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm happy to answer your questions, but could you please just say (1) or (2) in response to my inquiry. Which do you think the evidence more strongly supports?
Okay
Once life started "how and when" was it witnessed, was it
recorded, can there be a test that shows the how and why?
Is the creation story, up against another story, another
possible explanation, this other explanation can it be shown
to be true or false? Are we left putting our faith in a story
no matter which way we turn?
What is creation bei ...[text shortened]... ce do you have for life beginning simply and
through time becoming more complex?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayReductio ad absurdum, eh Kelly?
Okay
Once life started "how and when" was it witnessed, was it
recorded, can there be a test that shows the how and why?
Is the creation story, up against another story, another
possible explanation, this other explanation can it be shown
to be true or false? Are we left putting our faith in a story
no matter which way we turn?
What is creation bei ...[text shortened]... ce do you have for life beginning simply and
through time becoming more complex?
Kelly
As you say, the universe tends to disorder, but that's not to say individual parts cannot become more ordered. A water pump pumping water uphill is increasing the energy of the water (decreasing its entropy), but only does so at the expense of more energy, noise etc. The decrease in entropy on earth is as a result of the sun slowly burning itself out.