19 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, I'm scolding people who really don't know how everything got here attempting to show
Did you look at my link to geology and folded rocks?
I see you are still chiding science which is in kindergarten for not knowing everything. You are scolding science for not being like your god.
You should hold off on that criticism for a while since science improves hourly now that we have people talking on internet.
how long ago everything got here without how it happen. I'm not chiding science no need
to do that since science isn't a being that has an opinion, that would be the people who use
it.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by moonbusListen with respect to light it was created before the stars, so which direction was it
KJ: "I have said if you don't know how it began, your best guess on its age isn't going to be a very good one." (My emphasis.)
I'm going to try to rebut that claim. The reason is that evidence we see now very often carries information about how long something has existed, whether or not we know or ever can know [i]how it came ...[text shortened]... ar-old redshifts in the year 4004 BC. That date just doesn't square with the available evidence.
travelling when that occurred? The light sources as stars were made to be signs as soon
as they were created, so from the moment they were made they were seen by the ones
who were in this universe standing on this planet, the ones that were to see them in the
night sky.
If you have an theory on how it all got here I'd like to hear it. Right now I'm being blasted
for suggesting that see the universe as is does not tell us how it got here or for that matter
how long it has been here. We can date several things in this universe, we can see them
start and end they are little closed systems where we can watch from cradle to grave the
times. That is not true for the whole, there is no comparison.
I'm not telling you to reject the age of the universe due to scripture I read! I'm telling you
that nothing in the way we measure the universe touches the details on its beginning and
without that there is no way to know. If you wish to go on about Red Shift I'd refer you to
my car travelling analogy seeing something like that does not address how long it has
been going, only far it will go from when we see it then we can project the distance it will
go provided the rate remains constant.
I go back to the question I asked awhile back if this all started because God created a
mature universe capable of life at the on set, will we know any more about by looking at
how fast the rates and distances are we see today? The only reason we claim billions of
years is that we assume that the universe has been around that long, because we do not
know how it got here. The math can be solid I would be shocked if it were not, but with
all of them they assume time that may not have happen.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI would like nothing better than for you to wake and smell the coffee. You diss science for not knowing how the universe started when science as a whole is only a few hundred years old and I think you are have more of a reasoning mind than Hinds. Did you view my little video on geology? Can you look at all that and still think Earth is only 6000 years old?
What are your goals here?
AND how can you just fall over and believe the analysis of humans about who begat whom as if it were 100% accurate. You have to know there will be gaps and all those begats are just a small snippet of time.
If you look at a rock formation bent and wrapped up like a pull of taffy, how can you look at that and rationalize all that happening in only a few thousand years when if you have any kind of education in physics you would know the amount of energy to do that in such a short time would be devastating to humans and most likely all other life forms on Earth.
You also have to know the continents have drifted apart, slammed together and so forth but how can you justify thinking all that could have possibly have happened in 6000 years? Can you imagine the energy it takes to move the continents NOW with it's one inch a year or so movement?
Try to think about how much energy would have been expended doing that not in 100 million years or so but 6000 years.
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to think about the consequences of such a situation.
Hinds talks about the grand canyon as being the sign of the world wide flood but he cannot answer the question about the mile or more deep sediment UNDERNEATH the grand canyon, where that could have come from in 6000 years.
Then you see salt deposits miles deep and that comes from evaporating sea water, miles deep in 6000 years?
How can you look at all that data and still conclude scientists are just stupid and don't follow the bible, put away all their instruments and just become priests and stop all this nonsense about billions of years.
It just boggles my poor mind that people in the 21 st century can still be mired in ancient tales when the evidence for otherwise is all around us. There are TREES older than 6000 years. There is a stand of trees in Scotland 9000 years old and very much alive.
Yet Hinds would undoubtedly go 'that's bullshtye, tree rings can come around several times a year' which of course science knows all about and they choose trees that ONLY makes rings once a year but then Hinds just poo poo's the entire science of tree dating and every other dating method of Earth age.
Yet he claims to love science, that science that saves his butt when he is sick but the science that uses the exact same methods of deduction is all of a sudden bogus or a giant atheist conspiracy to kill Christianity.
That is his stance. Is that also yours? ONLY that science that never ages the Earth or the universe, that is to say, all astronomy, all geology, all forms of radioactive or any other dating technique is now bogus BECAUSE it says Earth is a few billion years old not thousands.
If the science results said Earth was indeed 6000 years old, he and all the other YEC's would LOVE that science. But when it give results that says Earth is very very old, now it is a pariah science and maybe even a vast atheist conspiracy.
Are you part of the crowd that wishes for instance, evolution to be tossed out because it doesn't agree with the bible?
So are you going to look at my video or just pose more questions or statements about how we can't know much, any method that says Earth is very old is just a guess?
19 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseNO WHERE do you see me calling anyone names, questioning their motives, belittling
I would like nothing better than for you to wake and smell the coffee. You diss science for not knowing how the universe started when science as a whole is only a few hundred years old and I think you are have more of a reasoning mind than Hinds. Did you view my little video on geology? Can you look at all that and still think Earth is only 6000 years old? ...[text shortened]... statements about how we can't know much, any method that says Earth is very old is just a guess?
their education or why they say and believe the things they do. I have to trust science to
do all the things I do at work, even that isn't in question for me. I've laid out over and over
my concerns and why.
It is a rare thing where I look at video's posted here, so no I have not seen your video to
be honest. Will I, yes I will because you think it is important. Does it address the concerns
I have? If not then it will suffer the same way as everyone's personal views on this topic.
Just because we come up with a new way to look at something without knowing the
details on the beginning, it will just be another process in place doing what we know it
does. It will offer no more information than the car analogy does on how far back it was!
Just because we learn something new about the road, the car, the driver, and every other
detail does not change we still do not know the starting point! So regardless it will always
be conjecture based upon rates that can only tell us where we are going, not where it
began!
With respect to Hinds his issues are his just as mine are mine. I dislike the personal
attacks that tend to come to him and from him. There is nothing about this topic that I think
needs to rise to me attacking someone else. I can agree to disagree and walk away no
matter what you believe about this topic. It isn't going to change how long it takes me to
drive to work, or alter how much I have to pay for gas, or get you into or keep you out of
God's grace and mercy.
With respect to God it is an issue, but I don't believe I can say or do anything to make
someone believe in God, for me that is God's job not mine. I just tell you where I am at
and what I believe, you can do with that what you will. People go on and on about no
evidence for God, personally I think the universe and everything in it is evidence since
no one has come up with anything remotely viable to cover my main concern.
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAs for me, I would rather talk to a thousand of you than one of Hinds type.
NO WHERE do you see me calling anyone names, questioning their motives, belittling
their education or why they say and believe the things they do. I have to trust science to
do all the things I do at work, even that isn't in question for me. I've laid out over and over
my concerns and why.
It is a rare thing where I look at video's posted here, so no ...[text shortened]... it is evidence since
no one has come up with anything remotely viable to cover my main concern.
At least we can converse. There is no converse with Hinds, only one way flow's of information.
Here is another point I made from my own imagination about the age of Earth:
Look at the moon. You see literally millions of craters. Nowhere in written history except one has there been any kind of story of stuff hitting the moon. There was one story of some monks somewhere totally freaked out somewhere around the 9th century of seeing a flash on the moon. A flash. It did freak them out, not having the slightest hint of science back then.
But think about all the time that went by in the last 6000 years? All those craters and nobody around to see then except one lone monastery?
Doesn't that strike you as odd? So your god not only makes the universe to look old but made the moon that way too? Doesn't that strike you as a bit paranoid that a god would do that ONLY to confound us in the 20th and 21st century?
But if the moon was actually only 6000 years old and all those strikes really happened, it would have had to have happened in just a few years, whatever the date was before mankind appears and such since it was apparently a done deal by the time mankind appears.
So if they were actual strikes that happened in what? ten years? 2 days? Whatever, here is the salient point: It would never have had a chance to cool down by physics we know about in just a few thousand years AND early mankind would have HAD to have noticed a red hot moon back in the day.
Not a word ANYWHERE on Earth about a red hot moon. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
According to the latest theory about the origin of the moon, it was a planet the size of Mars that whacked into earth and you can imagine the kind of energies released by that collision, it supposedly broke off a piece of Earth combined with what was left of that planet and the bits and pieces took off into space, orbiting the Earth some 20,000 ish miles up and then the pieces got together with gravity to form the moon. The RED HOT MOON.
All those craters later would have kept the moon red hot for millions of years because of the heat energy trapped inside and by the collisions. That energy took a long long time to cool to the state we see today. We know it is relatively cool because 12 dudes walked around on it in several different places and they did not talk about hot feet🙂
So how could you think about all that heat going away in that short a time, a few thousand years?
Hinds answer when I posed it to him:
And I quote: 'Water cooled it off' I guess from the world wide flood, I don't know.
Not bothering with such details as 12 men walking around up there and seeing no evidence of any flooding or river beds or erosion from water.......
He had to come up with SOMETHING to keep his belief going I guess, put a wedge that deep and he could crack.
Anyway, think about the heat dynamics of how you could possibly cool of an entire planet the size of the moon from red hot to cool enough to walk on, in 6000 years.
20 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't have an answer for all the craters on the moon. The fact that there are craters is
As for me, I would rather talk to a thousand of you than one of Hinds type.
At least we can converse. There is no converse with Hinds, only one way flow's of information.
Here is another point I made from my own imagination about the age of Earth:
Look at the moon. You see literally millions of craters. Nowhere in written history except one has the ...[text shortened]... of an entire planet the size of the moon from red hot to cool enough to walk on, in 6000 years.
a mystery to me, but not just because no one reported strikes on the moon, but way that
the moon rotates around the earth too. Since we always see the same side of the moon
how did all of the craters get there on our side of it, seems like a lot of near misses to me?
If the moon was indeed pelted with things that left all of those craters why isn't the earth
pelted the same way? I'm sure our atmosphere protects this place from small objects, but
some of the craters on the moon are not small.
I don't see why a crater on the moon would be would get hot it isn't like anything would be
heated up as it flew into it. I also can see the moon being hit and people not writing it
down, for one the strike would need to be noticed then recorded.
I'm sure for the last thousand or so years unlike today with 24 hour news station that such
things could have either been common place or more than likely not seen by someone of
note that could have recorded it and had that recording widely published.
Had the moon been struck during times when it wasn't full would anyone see with the naked
eye, could it have happen during over cast days or nights would anyone see when it
happen, was anyone looking up at just the right time when it happen. If you are right that
the moon would have gotten hot, would anyone noticed that from earth unless it
dramatically was altered in some noticeable way.
Don't know how the moon got there, was it a part of the earth or no? I don't think it was,
but you could be right. Personally, I think it was created shortly after the earth, so how and
why would it get red hot I'm not sure. I doubt it ever was, but again that is me. You know
already how I feel about millions of years being placed on anything.
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen an asteroid hit a planet or a moon there is an incredible amount of kinetic energy involved. You know the formula, K=(MV^2)/2 mass in kilograms, velocity in meters per second. So an asteroid massing a billion kg coming in at 10,000 meters per second, that would be a billion times 50 million = 50 QUADRILLION Joules or watt seconds.
I don't have an answer for all the craters on the moon. The fact that there are craters is
a mystery to me, but not just because no one reported strikes on the moon, but way that
the moon rotates around the earth too. Since we always see the same side of the moon
how did all of the craters get there on our side of it, seems like a lot of near misses to m ...[text shortened]... again that is me. You know
already how I feel about millions of years being placed on anything.
Almost all of that energy will go into heat which would be about 15 quadrillion BTU.
Does that make an image for you? All that heat concentrated in the area hit, say an asteroid massing 1 billion Kg is for grins, 1000 meters across all 15 quadrillion BTU would be expended in that area. I think it would outclass an atomic bomb.
The thing is, there are literally millions of craters on the moon, front and back, even though the back looks like it had less hits it also had a lot of volcanic activity which is why it looks smooth.
The moon was bombarded and Earth too, there are still craters visible through magnetic measurements, one big one was the Chixulub (Sp?) strike in the Yucatan penninsula, a monster about 5 miles across came slamming in making a crater about 180 miles wide and the stuff thrown off made a pile 700 feet deep in BURMUDA. Think about the energy of a strike that big.
If there were people around, even on the other side of the planet, they would have felt an incredible earthquake first then clouds would have blocked out the sun for years.
You see anything in the bible that would suggest violence on that level? According to geologists it happened about 70 million years ago, which you would doubt of course but between volcanoes, shifting climate and that asteroid strike, dinosaurs went extinct though some live a long time afterwards and the only living relatives now are birds.
Dinosaurs were super chickens. Anyway that should give you an indication of the unimaginable amount of energy in a strike of that magnitude and that heat energy would not go away in just a few thousand years. If that kind of strike happened say on day 2 of the creation myth, we would EASILY have been able to measure the excess heat today. No heat today to speak of other than sunlight, it had to have happened in the deep past.
20 Jan 16
4 edits
Originally posted by menace71The mistake most people make is to look at those things that seem to point to being the oldest. The oldest indicator is what they take as the age of the earth and the universe.
I don't how to reconcile the bible and the age of the universe ....I have gone back and forth on this in my mind but I'm convinced the universe is vast and old
Manny
However, the correct way is to look for the limiting factors that point to the earth being the youngest. It is like finding a chest of gold coins on a sunken ship. To determine when the ship sunk, you can use the dates on the coins as limiting factors. For example if you have coins dated from 1804 to 2001, then you would know the ship could not have sunk more than 15 years ago.
You can use a similar method to limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years. 😏
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd Moonbus got it from me, and I used it as an analogy for Kellys belief about stars. So you just called Kellys beliefs (which are similar to yours) 'stupid'.
No, that was moonbus that made those statements about God needing to make Adam with the memories of a child. 😏
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I pointed out to you, the odds are someone seeing it were more than likely not good
When an asteroid hit a planet or a moon there is an incredible amount of kinetic energy involved. You know the formula, K=(MV^2)/2 mass in kilograms, velocity in meters per second. So an asteroid massing a billion kg coming in at 10,000 meters per second, that would be a billion times 50 million = 50 QUADRILLION Joules or watt seconds.
Almost all of t ...[text shortened]... today. No heat today to speak of other than sunlight, it had to have happened in the deep past.
and if they did, did they record it? Would they have been literate enough to record it?
Historically speaking you've produced a monk was it, no matter who is right about the age
of the earth you'd think it would be a little more common than not if it was noticeable
wouldn't you think? How big a blast would a atomic bomb event like that make and how
long would it be noticeable? I'd also venture a guess that it could also have been
mistaken as very large cloud which could have just as easily be thought of as something
obsure in our sky above as normal event as any seen even today.
There are a lot of things not in the Bible, those not in it I don't worry about to much it is
those in it that I think everyone should have some concern over.
Interesting about the other side of the moon being smoother, I'd thought it would have
been the other way around.