jerryR34

Hubble clarified the position to be 1.2 billion (the only place you'll find the 35 billion year number is in your accusations) light years away, vs the 70 or so for the galaxy. But Hubble shows that it is merely the light passing through the disk and the halo of the galaxy that makes it look like they are connected. I will copy your post to physics forums.com and report some of the replies back to everyone.

Good Suggestion, I will consider it. This is a great suggestion. If you decide to do it, could you please post a link so that we may follow along?

What is the "Peking Duck" in your analogy? Are you equating Davies work to the Second Law?

So God's words are not important? Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar. Are you trying to make this a debate? This is about the flaws of a movie. A movie is for entertainment purposes first. If Noah did not depart from the original, it would be, except for the beginning, a silent film. This is not about the importance of God's Word, this is about a blockbuster movie and its merits as a movie. I am a bit at a loss to see how a movie , named after a person in the Bible, and events in the Bible are not about the importance of God's Word and just a movie? I agree with Ncn, I found the comment previously made to come across as sarcasm. I am sure I will be flamed for saying this.....but if you are going to make a movie about the Bible....make it as accurate as possible, if you cannot make it into a long enough film to have it viewable in a theater or stick to the actual intent, words, story....the simply don't make it. Yes, people have a right to do whatever they choose, and watch whatever it is they choose to....I am not attacking that right....but simply saying....Those are the words of God....I cherish the Word of God, and when movies like this are made....I find it absolutely heartbreaking, angry ( a little ) but saddened more than anything. I find it's merits as a movie to be making a mockery of God Almighty. People may agree or disagree with me, that's fine....but I just can't sit back and keep the opinion of ...oh, it's just a movie...look at it for it's entertainment value....sorry, mockery of God's word...for me......is not entertaining. God Bless, Hip I wonder if there are followers of the Greek Gods having hissy fits over Percy Jackson or Clash of the Titans? The Bible was just used to come up with a story line - I think that Connor was saying there had to be a lot of artistic license because the story in the bible was short and did not provide 2-3 hours of detail for a movie. I am curious as to how this would fit your description of a fit? Nothing I have stated in my previous post was in any way a fit of any kind. I simply stated I take the Word of God seriously, I don't find it something to take whatever liberty one chooses with ok. I had also stated that they have the right to make and watch whatever movies they choose. I said I find it a mockery and not entertaining.....As to which I have every right to do so. Also, I addressed that issue of time by saying, if you can't do it right...don't do it. Lastly , this is a Christian site, If we were discussing Greek gods on a Greek gods site, I am sure there would be some form of disagreement. God Bless, Hip Sorry Hippie, didn't mean to say you were part of the hissy fit.

So God's words are not important? Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar. Are you trying to make this a debate? This is about the flaws of a movie. A movie is for entertainment purposes first. If Noah did not depart from the original, it would be, except for the beginning, a silent film. This is not about the importance of God's Word, this is about a blockbuster movie and its merits as a movie. I am a bit at a loss to see how a movie , named after a person in the Bible, and events in the Bible are not about the importance of God's Word and just a movie? I agree with Ncn, I found the comment previously made to come across as sarcasm. I am sure I will be flamed for saying this.....but if you are going to make a movie about the Bible....make it as accurate as possible, if you cannot make it into a long enough film to have it viewable in a theater or stick to the actual intent, words, story....the simply don't make it. Yes, people have a right to do whatever they choose, and watch whatever it is they choose to....I am not attacking that right....but simply saying....Those are the words of God....I cherish the Word of God, and when movies like this are made....I find it absolutely heartbreaking, angry ( a little ) but saddened more than anything. I find it's merits as a movie to be making a mockery of God Almighty. People may agree or disagree with me, that's fine....but I just can't sit back and keep the opinion of ...oh, it's just a movie...look at it for it's entertainment value....sorry, mockery of God's word...for me......is not entertaining. God Bless, Hip I wonder if there are followers of the Greek Gods having hissy fits over Percy Jackson or Clash of the Titans? The Bible was just used to come up with a story line - I think that Connor was saying there had to be a lot of artistic license because the story in the bible was short and did not provide 2-3 hours of detail for a movie.

Pierre Grasse...expert in termites. The work you posted was from the early 70's? Skell's quote basically says that the reasearchers did not have evolution at the forefront of their research, but that evolution put it into perspective (I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.) I will read Paumbi's quotes in context, but it would be nice to see you get his blessing to use his quote in the context you are using it. Your other quotes are again from the early 70's?

It never had to. When the scientific method began to prevail (as opposed to philosophical science), there was a realization that we could observe nature without invoking the supernatural, and progress much more quickly in our understanding of the natural world. ======================================================================== You've misquoted this is Tristen's, I didn't make this statement. thanks Enoch.

Evolution has been known to take place in viruses. This is how they can combat our antibiotics. And yes, adaptation is apart of evolution. =================================================================================== I think I've already told you this a number of times..... Viruses aren't even classified as life, they need host DNA. And you don't "Combat" Viruses with Antibiotics Antibiotics only work on BACTERIA. Replace virus wtih bacteria and player's quote is valid.

There must be much artistic license taken in any story of Noah as it is physically impossible on so many levels.

It never had to. When the scientific method began to prevail (as opposed to philosophical science), there was a realization that we could observe nature without invoking the supernatural, and progress much more quickly in our understanding of the natural world.

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water By Paul Farrar In this short and, I hope, simple note I will discuss the physical implications of the often proposed "vapor canopy" explanation for the source of water for Noah's Flood as recorded in "Genesis". Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed. The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went. First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point. Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today. How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible?

I disagree with you there...

Yet you use science to try to make your point.

deleted

============================================================================== Well there Jerry...I surely don't have "Blind Faith"!! And According to the Almighty GOD, there's plenty of evidence to choose from....and, apparently there is NO EXCUSE!! (Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" John 20 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Natural selection is a more accurate description. =============================================================================================== Of course "Natural Selection" isn't evolution..... "Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms." Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionist) "We fully understand Darwin's fears and wonder what they would have been, had he been confronted with the anatomical and cytological complexity that is revealed by modern biology; he would have been even more worried had he known that selection cannot create anything on its own." Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.104-5 "Moreover, during phylogenetic organogenesis, natural selection must be capable of foresight. Isn't "choosing" its prime function? But the choice cannot take place without predicting the future role of the incipient organ. Without such prescience, the coordination of successive states is incomprehensible. Did Darwin take this into consideration?" Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.106 "A major problem in this subject is that there is a multiplicity of meanings for the same terms, and the same terms mean different things to different people...this often leads to confusion in the literature. Natural Selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related." Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986,. page 8 ‘Selection slows mutational degeneration, but does not even begin to actually stop it. So even with intense selection, evolution is going the wrong way—toward extinction!’ Dr. John Sanford, PHD Geneticist Cornell University, Inventor of the "Gene-Gun" None of the quotes you presented address natural selection. If a mutation enhances an organisms ability to procreate and pass on its genes, then the mutation will be passed along, if not the mutation will die with the organism. Please present some quotes that will refute the basis of natural selection.

Natural selection is a more accurate description.

================================================================================== That's because he used the Refrigerator Posty Note Definition of "Faith" (which actually means "Blind Faith" which is an OxyMoron) which atheists ( blinded by their TrainWreck World View) stumblingly project onto Christians..... to somehow show that their beliefs aren't based in reality but the atheist is grounded in "Hard Evidence" like his Stupefying 2 + 2= 4 and the earth is round fiasco that any Mirror Fogger can testify to. Well the 2 + 2= 4 and the earth is round fiasco isn't gonna SAVE YOU from Outer Darkness and the Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth. They want you to table the Analytical/Scrutinizing/Deductive Reasoning and Intellectual Discernment Skills that GOD gave to the common Ground Squirrel to discover him with a Reckoning and Acknowledgment of the PLAIN TRUTH all around US......as noted here: (Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" I Reckon I'll roll with GOD on this one (and every one!!).....because it makes perfect sense to me. So Enoch, are you saying you require evidence to believe in Christ?

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." -Bertrand Russell Even though he was an atheist, this makes complete sense.

======================================================================= LOL Empty Words. Show ONE TEST of what he put forward in his little Vaudeville Act: Big Bang Nebular Hypothesis evolution His stupid Bubble Universe/Multiverse That Moronic Tiktaalik Bugs Bunny animation coming out of the water His IMPLIED "Primordial Soup" nonsense And Little Mammals (Our Ancestors) , "Scurrying Underfoot" Can you refute any of these scientifically? Science would welcome you disproving any of them.

"To make this journey we'll need imagination, but imagination alone is not enough because the reality of nature is far more wondrous than anything we can imagine. This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours." Neil Degrasse Tyson, COSMOS Part I

So should Christians give more airtime time to evolutionists? How would you feel about Neil D Tyson getting some airtime at your pulpit.

No, they are not. They have very different purposes. http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements. Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline. While a No, they are not. They have very different purposes. http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements. Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline. While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case. can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case. Newton's laws are a subset of gravitational theory. Laws describe the way gravity affect objects, but do not describe why. Thus, a subset...from your link: A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

I think my knowledge of history is what reinforces my belief that science should only include observation of nature with no preconceived notions based on metaphysical beings. See how badly we've messed up the message in the past - see how that has held us up for so long in understanding our environment? There's a place for God, but it is not in the lab. you knowledge of history is a bit off, perhaps you should stick to science. The "church" at the time of Galileo and others was also the governing power and the education establishment . Status quo was not being held onto due solely to religious reasons, it was a a power struggle that engulfed whole governments and the control of the people. To put forth that Galileo was rejected because of religion so misses the rest of the story. Might I suggest a book called "The Soul of Science" by Nancy Pearcey what's the most powerful argument the government could use to keep the status quo of flat earth, earth-centered universe, man from dust, etc.? I think my history is better than my science. Do we want to go back to letting religion dictate to the government what the government could dictate to science?

Common mistake. Proofs are only valid in math. There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory. No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish? Gravity is described by gravitational theory. If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science. Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven. As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept. hmmm.... In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. .... While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law so, either the happy scientist is wrong or Jerry is wrong. The computers we are posting on are possible because of just a little theory called electromagnetic theory. All science is based on just theories. Scientific Law A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true. Scientific Hypothesis A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature. Scientific Theory A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application. The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization. It is NOT an explanation. It is the result of induction. It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true. Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed. Often scientists form theories to explain laws. Laws: 1. The Law of Gravity. This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is. 2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved. It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation. The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity. Theories: 1. The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power. We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory. It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory. In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CG8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grossmont.edu%2Fjohnoakes%2Fs110online%2FNotes%2520on%2520Scientific%2520Laws.doc&ei=0LYwU5uvJoq5qAGhxIGoDw&usg=AFQjCNHe1KkFCySYux1fhLz4BvZkRNxzpA Laws are a subset of theory.