Speed of light

[Bread_of_Life]

Oh dear.

Nik do you actually read your posts before posting? Do you believe what you write? Do you offer opinions without

[Bread_of_Life]

Horizoneast

If you believe Hitler used Darwinism to justify his evil why can

[spiritman]

You know God didn't put everything in the Bible, sometimes he just allows us to use our common sense.

[spiritman]

3.The creation was finished or mature when God made it. Adam was full-grown, the trees had fruit on them, the starlight was visible, etc.

Let me elaborate on these 3 points.

First, no one can measure star distance accurately. The farthest accurate distance man can measure is 20 light years (some textbooks say up to 100), not several billion light years. Man measures star distances using parallax trigonometry.

By choosing two measurable observation points and making an imaginary triangle to a third point, and using simple trigonometry, man calculates the distance to the third point.

The most distant observation points available are the positions of the earth in solar orbit six months apart, say June and December. This would be a base for our imaginary triangle of 186,000,000 miles or 16 light minutes. There are 525,948 minutes in a year. Even if the nearest star were only one light year away (and it isn?t), the angle at the third point measures .017 degrees. In simpler terms, a triangle like this would be the same angle two surveyors would see if they were standing sixteen inches apart and focusing on a third point 8.24 miles away.

If they stayed 16 inches apart and focused on a dot 824 miles away, they would have the same angle as an astronomer measuring a point 100 light years away. A point 5 million light years away is impossible to figure with trigonometry.

The stars may be that far away but modern man has no way of measuring those great distances. No one can state definitively the distance to the stars. The stars may indeed be billions of light years away, but man cannot measure those distances.

I'm glad you used the term "Imaginary", because this is pure fiction. The earth doesn't orbit the sun. Not one person has EVER observed the earth orbit the sun. All you have to do is look out the window and watch teh sun rise in the east and set in the west. The sun orbits the earth. This is not nonsense, it is perfectly correct, first of all by the Word of God, second by Newton, and thirdly by Einstein.

this is why self proclaimed "scientists" come up with the ridiculous numbers for their distances in the first place, because their calculations are based on the false assumption that the earth orbits the sun, contrary to observable fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, well as you can read in my posting, This is an article that I ran across, and I'm not the soul owner of it, nor did it come from me, but came from the before mentioned Drdino.com, I suggest if you disagree with him, write him a nice email explaining your postion. I think this man has a P.H.D, so he probably would be glad to give you an answer.

[Bread_of_Life]

horizoneast

Hitler also said he would not annex the Sudetenland and that Jews were sub-human. Are you na

[Bread_of_Life]

The simple-minded on the other hand will believe anything.

Your insults don't answer my question. If "Table Talk" isn't to be trusted, why did you quote it? After all, if I am simple minded for quoting it, I am only following your example.

Everything he did was contrary to the Christian faith.

I didn't say he was a Christian, I said he doesn't appear to be an atheist. There are other states of being, other than "atheist" and "Christian". Proving that he was not a Christian will not prove he was an atheist, therefore your argument is non sequitor

Nik I should think that any atheist/agnostic becomes such in their

[Bread_of_Life]

What insults?

Answer the point Horizon, if you're allowed to quote Table Talk without being simple minded, why arn't I? You quoted it first, answer the point.

Well then you tell me

[Remnantrob]

I thought this article would be of interest to some. It is written by the late author Joe Crews

The Mystery of the Empty Strata

Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata which pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as they have been tagged by the scientists.

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." p. 309.

How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.

Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it:

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution." Science, July 4, l958.

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:

"Strange as it may seem ... mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakably as they are now." The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101.

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these words:

"Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years?...If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling." Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102.

George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution", summarized it:

"The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." The Evolution of Life, p. 144.

In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research.

The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists - a sudden creative act of God which brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.

[Guest Obtuse Monkey]

I'm glad you used the term "Imaginary", because this is pure fiction. The earth doesn't orbit the sun. Not one person has EVER observed the earth orbit the sun. All you have to do is look out the window and watch teh sun rise in the east and set in the west. The sun orbits the earth. This is not nonsense, it is perfectly correct, first of all by the Word of God, second by Newton, and thirdly by Einstein. 

this is why self proclaimed "scientists" come up with the ridiculous numbers for their distances in the first place, because their calculations are based on the false assumption that the earth orbits the sun, contrary to observable fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct, the sun moves around the Earth..to us. Indeed, you are the centre of the universe...to you. When you are seated on a moving train, it is not you or the train that is moving, but in fact, the rest of the Earth, and indeed Universe, moving around you and the train, but again, it is only moving like that to you (and other seated passengers). Next time your on a train, look out the window, observable fact shows this; things a moving outside of the train, as you can see, things inside appear to be remaining still.

I thought this article would be of interest to some.  It is written by the late author Joe Crews

The Mystery of the Empty Strata

Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata which pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as they have been tagged by the scientists.

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." p. 309.

How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.

Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it:

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution." Science, July 4, l958.

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:

"Strange as it may seem ... mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakably as they are now." The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101.

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these words:

"Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years?...If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling." Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102.

George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution", summarized it:

"The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." The Evolution of Life, p. 144.

In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research.

The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists - a sudden creative act of God which brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you die and are buried, will you eventually become a fossil? Does everything become fossilized? Check that out, because, funnily enough, very few things do become fossils.

[Guest Obtuse Monkey]

WhySoBlind

I'm glad you used the term "Imaginary", because this is pure fiction. The earth doesn't orbit the sun. Not one person has EVER observed the earth orbit the sun. All you have to do is look out the window and watch teh sun rise in the east and set in the west. The sun orbits the earth. This is not nonsense, it is perfectly correct, first of all by the Word of God, second by Newton, and thirdly by Einstein. 

this is why self proclaimed "scientists" come up with the ridiculous numbers for their distances in the first place, because their calculations are based on the false assumption that the earth orbits the sun, contrary to observable fact.

Obtuse Monkey

Correct, the sun moves around the Earth..to us. Indeed, you are the centre of the universe...to you. When you are seated on a moving train, it is not you or the train that is moving, but in fact, the rest of the Earth, and indeed Universe, moving around you and the train, but again, it is only moving like that to you (and other seated passengers). Next time your on a train, look out the window, observable fact shows this; things a moving outside of the train, as you can see, things inside appear to be remaining still.

WRONG, both of you. OM you are talking about perception, not fact. You perceive the world outside the train to be moving while you are stationary but the truth is that both are moving. WSB is just being silly because it is a fact that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. The Moon is orbiting the Earth, the Earth is orbiting the Sun, the Sun is orbiting the center of our galaxy which is moving through the universe. This is observable fact. At least as far as we can perceive our reality that is...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Err, no, check out Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Everything is moving relative to the observer. Newtonian physics is just outdated.

[Edit: Also, the moon is moving in a straight line, as is the earth, as is the sun, but gravity distorts space time so it appears to be moving in a circular motion. However, as with all physics, this is all conjecture...]

Edited June 1, 2005 by Obtuse Monkey