This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Shtal on 25 February 2014 - 05:02
And what I am going ask you or specifically talking about comets, (I think it is really interesting) the fact that comets is made out of bison / dirt and they orbit the sun and every time they orbit they loose little bit of material as a sun blasts away that icy material is what’s forms comets tail; so comets don’t last that long, they run out of material about 100,000 thousands of years and scientists seeing comets being destroy in one pass as they go behind the sun and sometimes they being destroy in one pass; they do not last that long. And so if the solar system really were 4.6 billion years old - why do we still have comets? And I think this is amazing lines evidence? Pretty powerful conformations of Biblical creation but they really don’t constitute ultimate proof, it may seem I refuted evolutionist’s world view that I absolutely demonstrated creation but I haven’t and the reason is for every line of these evidence that I presented to you vk4, evolutionist can always come up with what I might call rescuing device, you can come up with conjecture design to protect your world view from what appears to be contrary evidence, so in case of comets that I am talking about as an example; you my dear tare and secular astronomy they know that? They know that comets don’t last that long but they say well we know or should I say assume that the solar system is billon years old so there must be some source of new comets which they call oort cloud after its inventor young oort. So the idea is this vast spear of potential comets way beyond the planets; beyond that we could detected and every now and then one of these thrown into inner solar system and becomes a brand new comets; as the old one depleted the new once replace them. And that’s kind of convinced – you see solar system can be billons years old after all…Now if I were to ask secular astronomer do you have any observational evidence of an oort cloud? If scientist honest then he would say well no, but he may say but you can’t prove it’s NOT there…right lol and that is true I can’t prove that there is not oort cloud, it is very hard to disprove something that can’t be detected in anyway…lol so yeah it’s true that there for it could be an oort cloud and there for comets don’t prove that solar system is thousands years old, they confirm it but they don’t prove it…And if you think about it vk4, you can always invoke a rescuing device because there are always unknowns, we don’t know everything and there is always unknowns in science and so evolutionist can always invoke rescuing device. You see you are not ready to give up on your world view on bases of one unsolved mystery there and I can’t really blame you for inventing rescuing device, I am not blaming the secular astronomer necessary for thinking that there is oort cloud that is consistence with your observation that there are comets and your world view - belief that the solar system is billions of years old. So you are thinking in the way that is consistence of your world view. On the other hand I don’t necessarily belief in oort cloud and I don’t have any reason to, I look at comets and say yes that’s what I would expect because I start with a different world view, different way of thinking about things. And my last thing that I want to talk about or mention to you Biblical time scale, the fact that we find C-14 in diamonds
“Age, based on long half-life isotope dating: 1-2 billion years (dating the minerals within the diamonds)”
and I think it is really powerful conformation of a young earth, because C-14 does NOT last even one million years, entire earth receive C-14 in one million years it would be gone, decay in nitrogen, it’s true C-14 does not last that long so the fact that we find diamonds that supposed to be billions of years old, tells that those diamonds are NOT billions of years old, they are thousands of years old, in fact it limits the age of few thousand years.
“Carbon-dating 12 diamonds” ‘age’ of 58,000 years (the crystal structure of diamonds prevents recent contamination with C-14).”
And of course 58,000 thousand there is upper limit; it could be much younger than that. So C-14 in diamonds and pretty much everything we find in earth, anything that has carbon in it has C-14 in it; it appears and that certainly confirms recent creation and global flood and geologically recent past; NOT millions of years ago. Vk4, evidence by itself will not resolve a worldview conflict; because your world view tells you what to make out of evidence…and so I mean argument that leaves - attempts to leave world views out of discussion and simply talk on the bases individual evidences…Vk4, honestly I can’t just throw evidence at you and expect that you will change your world view and there is no obligation for you to do so and you just going to interpret these evidence accordingly. You don’t need more reasons to believe - that’s not logical or Biblical approach to apologetics, people need a world view challenge and that’s what I want to do. I feel I have very good evidence which I presented entire time being on this forum, and I could say see this is very good evidence that the Bible is true and maybe It’s very good evidence that confirms creation but that’s because I am looking at properly through Biblical glasses and you my dear vk4 will look at the same evidence through secular glasses and what are you going to say? That’s not how I see it; you are going to come up with rescuing device to account that evidence accordingly to your world view and to add insult injury; you going to say actually you are the one coming up with rescuing device, my explanation is the right or correct one that solar system is billion years old. And you will not be persuaded by one way or the other.
Jesus says Matthew 12:30 He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters. And Romans 8:7 says: The mind set in the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so. And James 4:4 you adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
There is no neutral, you either God’s friend or his enemy, you for him or against him, you gathering or scattering, there is no neutral ground when it comes to a world view. Since the Bible indicates that there is no “neutral,” the claim or to claim of neutrality is itself unbiblical.
Thank you for reading,
Shtal.
by vk4gsd on 25 February 2014 - 06:02
i like it better when you speak from the heart instead of posting unproven psuedo-science. i haven't read it all, i skimmed, i notice you have included, evolution, astronomy, carbon dating and scripture to name a few. i noticed answersingenesis really are getting pushed further into the fringes of where the most uncertainty lies in science, this is convenient for you but also a problem. those fringes are getting pushed further back, at some point they will receed so far that god will just be forgotten.
seriously shatl you would actually convince a lot of people very quickly if you could take any scientific phenomena that is not on the fringes, evryday stuff like electricity or flight or mechanics and show it is false - you word convert evrybody in the world instantly, your biggest converts would be the scientists who would throw themselves at your feet. alas you only chose the areas where there is a receeding uncertainty.
you follow your hero Craig, start the debate with massive amounts of content from disparate fields of knowledge, bundle them all together as condensed as possible and then when as you know your opponent would need much time and effort to factually refute each expanse of concepts you claim some sort of victory in your mind, weak and devious shtal.
PROVE SOMETHING WITH POSITIVE ARGUMENTS AND REAL EVIDENCE, STOP TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING RIGHT BY PROVING ANOTHER THING WRONG WITH LONG-WINDED FALSEHOODS.
THE ONLY THING YOU PROVE IS THAT YOU LACK FAITH AND MOCK GOD.
example you want proof of the oort cloud and refute science as making it up as a rescue device, lets see what would be required to see it directly;
based on a calculation from "bad astronomy" to show why we do not see footprints on the moon from a telescope which people claim "we see no foot prints on the moon when we look with a telescope, proves the moon-landing was a hoax" same style of what you do with oort.
So back to our Oort Cloud objects. If we assume Hubble can resolve objects that are 0.1 arc seconds diameter or larger, we have a starting point to see how big an Oort Cloud object would need to be to be observed. But first, let’s see if an existing Oort Cloud comet can be observed by Hubble.
Using the equation: (d / D) × c = φ
where d is the diameter of the Oort Cloud comet (some estimates put this number at an upper limit of 300 km for the diameter of a cometary nucleus), D is the distance from the Oort Cloud to Hubble (0.3 light years, or 3×1015 metres – distance at which it is theorized there is the highest density of Oort Cloud objects), c is a constant (c = 206265) and φ is the telescope resolution.
So what resolution do we need to image an Oort Cloud object, 300 km in diameter, from 0.3 light years away? If we plug in the numbers we get:
φ = 2.06×10-5 = 0.00002 arc seconds
The resolving power of Hubble is 0.1 arc seconds, and is therefore useless at detecting anything below this angular size; Oort Cloud comets (although pretty big at an upper limit of 300 km) simply cannot be observed by the world’s most advanced space-based optical observatory.
But how big would an Oort Cloud observing telescope have to be to resolve a cometary nucleus 300 km wide at a distance of 0.3 light years away? Using the simple relationship R = 11.6 / w, where R is the resolving power (R = 0.00002/2; the reason for halving our resolving power is given by Phil), andw is the width of the telescope mirror, we rearrange to get:
w = 11.6 / 0.00001 = 1.16×106 cm = 11.6 km
As you can see, such a telescope would be huge. Unless there is some large baseline optical telescope that can use an array of observatories to make up for the 11.6 km-wide telescope mirror, we simply cannot observe Oort Cloud comets. In fact, the smallest object Hubble can resolve at a distance of 0.3 light years is nearly 730,000 km diameter (roughly half the diameter of the Sun!).
It would seem that the Oort Cloud objects are as inconsequential as grains of dust floating in our atmosphere when we peer through our telescopes and look at the Moon. We know the dust must be there, but we see straight through it as if it wasn’t…
by Shtal on 25 February 2014 - 06:02
by GSD Admin on 25 February 2014 - 07:02
Just face it, the universe is billions of years old and God didn't create it. Now if you want to claim God created man that is fine and much more believable than what you are so wrapped up in trying to prove/disprove. There is way to much scientific evidence to disbelieve and so little scientific evidence on your side of the coin.
Didn't you complain at one time or another about people using your name in their title? Or maybe that was another member complaining on your behalf, either way I am not getting complaints about you using another members name in your title. I will ask the other admins if they remember such a complaint.
by Shtal on 25 February 2014 - 09:02
Now, I have something to share with you but please don't give me any religion explainations about your belief why you believe what you believe...
by Shtal on 26 February 2014 - 06:02
by Shtal on 26 February 2014 - 23:02
Can you be more specific about things I post it in this thread or you simply going to run away...
by vk4gsd on 27 February 2014 - 06:02
by Shtal on 27 February 2014 - 06:02
by Shtal on 27 February 2014 - 08:02
The whole video had good material.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top