Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
48.png
Freddy:
Then it’s lucky that we have other methods of measurement to test the results. Parallax and the colour spectrum for example. Unless trigonometry is under review as well?
Click to expand...
The issue you raised is age, not distance. Parallax is limited to nearby stars.
Click to expand...
Time equals distance in astronomy. And the colour spectrum confirms distances that are too large for determining using paralax. Notwithstanding that the spacecraft Gaia has been mapping the stars in our own galaxy using paralax for the last 7 years. One billion and counting to date, which will confirm tbe accuracy of colour spectrum anaysis to ridiculously high levels.

The distances to stars aren’t theoretical. They are factual measurements. Hence their ages are likewise factual measurements.
 
I mentioned polar magnetism in recent days. Rapid exponential decay of the earth’s magnetic field (5% per century) is another evidence of a young earth.

The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young​

In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.
Click to expand...
 
stoplooklisten said:
I mentioned polar magnetism in recent days. Rapid exponential decay of the earth’s magnetic field (5% per century) is another evidence of a young earth.
Click to expand...
I was down at the beach the other day. I measured how quickly the sea was receding. Seems to me that all of the land on earth was under the sea about 120 years ago.

You are making an incorrect uniformitarian assumption here. The magnetic field is like the tide, it comes in and goes out; it does not move steadily in one direction. See Geomagnetic reversal for more details.

This is an old YEC PRATT: Claim CD701 from years ago. Your sources are lying to you by omitting to tell you that the earth’s magnetic field reverses direction every so often, as does the tide. Why do you believe sources that lie to you?
 
Freddy said:
Time equals distance in astronomy.
Click to expand...
Sorry, time does not equal distance anywhere. And neither dimension captures the age of an entity unless the absolute starting point of that entity and all the forces that have acted upon it affecting its present location are known.

But let’s cut to the chase. Rather than defend the fragility of the “science” underpinning evolution theory (which is understandable), you feebly attempt to criticize the bible as if the bible was a science book. That’s a categorical error.

However, we will allow you to properly categorize evolution theory for what it is. Like the bible, the evolution theory is a matter of faith. Believe what you like but don’t try to sell it as something which it is not.
 
o_mlly said:
48.png
Freddy:
Time equals distance in astronomy.
Click to expand...
Sorry, time does not equal distance anywhere.
Click to expand...
A light year is a distance. Represented by the speed of light over a year. Or time over distance. The greater the distance light has travelled, the longer the time it has taken to reach us.

You might have noticed that the longer you drive, the further you travel. The more time it takes, the greater the distance. Or maybe simple maths is under review as well.
 
Freddy said:
A light year is a distance. … Or maybe simple maths is under review as well.
Click to expand...
No, but perhaps you missed the basic formula in physics 101 class.

t = time
d = distance
s = speed

d = st,
light-year = s x 365.25, where s=speed of light.

Time does not equal distance.
 
rossum said:
You are making an incorrect uniformitarian assumption here.
Click to expand...
I think not. As you might imagine, I’m more in line with a catastrophic view of earth history than a uniformitarian view.
rossum said:
The magnetic field is like the tide, it comes in and goes out; it does not move steadily in one direction. See Geomagnetic reversal for more details.
Click to expand...
The magnetic force and magnetic polarity are related to the dynamo effect of convection currents and currents related to the earth’s orbit and rotation. If I stir a pitcher of orange juice and then stop, the swirling will quickly slow down (and the pulp will settle) The liquid center of the earth and sun still have “swirling” going on inside them but this can be expected to slow down. “Swirling” within the sun happens faster than “swirling” within the earth. ☷

The sun’s magnetic field reverses every 11 years. Source: The Sun's Magnetic Field is about to Flip - NASA

When volcanic activity and continental drift across the face of planet earth were happening at higher levels, the swirling effect within the earth was much faster and magnetic polarity changes were happening faster.

Among the planetary moons, those with a greater liquid core have greater magnetic forces. Jupiter’s Callisto has less of a core and less of its own magnetic force.
 
o_mlly said:
48.png
Freddy:
A light year is a distance. … Or maybe simple maths is under review as well.
Click to expand...
No…
Click to expand...
How about we suggest that parallax can determine a star’s distance to be approximately 30,000 light years away (which is a distance). But which also means that the light from the star has travelled for 30,000 years (which is a time).

Which means that it’s been around at least as long as that. I’m assuming that you are ok with the speed of light as you used it in your post above. We can then work out the relationship of it’s brightness to it’s distance. And we test this against other stars whose distance we know with certainty (using parallax) and then we use this information to determine the distance of stars even further out.

But your view is that there must be an error somewhere because the answers don’t correspond to information in the bible.
 
o_mlly said:
Hey, Fred … (All caps for the reading impaired). THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK.
Click to expand...
The Bible is a history book. History is not a scientific discipline. Science is concerned with repeatable, observable phenomena. Creation is not repeatable. History is not repeatable. Creation was a supernatural event. It didn’t follow the laws of nature that we observe today.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Even conventional science from the BBC seems to acknowledge that we can observe distances greater than what the speed of light allows. Given that conventional science posits the diameter of the known universe to be 93 billion light-years, we can see more within the speculated estimate of 13.8 billion years than we should be able to see if our observations were limited to what light at the speed of light can show us.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Of course, Big Bang theorists tell us that the universe in its early moments expanded at a rate greater than the speed of light. So, what do we really know?

We know what Almighty God has revealed in Scripture unless we choose to deny it or disbelieve it.
 
Last edited:
You are confusing the expansion of space with the speed of light. Space can expand at such a rate that the apparent speed of a distant galaxy will be greater than the speed of light (or c). But the galaxy itself cannot move faster than c.

This phenomenum gives us the edge of the observable universe. It’s the point at which the universe is expanding away from us faster than the light from distant objects is travelling towards us. So it will never reach us. So when all the light that can reach us (drastically red shifted) does so, it will disappear. Hang around long enough and everything will disappear. Cheerfull thought, eh?

Note that the speed of expansion is about 68 kilometers per second per megaparsec. So if you divide the speed of light in kps by 68 you’ll get the distance in parsecs where the universe is expanding at c.

And make sure that you tell o_mlly how old we know the universe to be.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
So you are even denying the simple trigonometry that’s used for this process? On what basis?
Click to expand...
Strawman number 1. Trig is fine if applied to Euclidean space, i.e., flat.
rossum said:
48.png
o_mlly:
THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Then why do you try to use to answer scientific questions like, “How old is the universe?”
Click to expand...
Strawman number 2.

Our interlocutors simply will not address the contingencies of their pseudoscience that underpins the religion of evolution as an explanation of the development of life on earth. Rather, they attempt to deflect to the stars having no good argument against the OP’s point that the fossil (none exist, as far as we know, in outer space) record does not support their religion.
 
How did RMNS design this one?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I think God did it.
 
o_mlly said:
Strawman number 1. Trig is fine if applied to Euclidean space, i.e., flat.
Click to expand...
You are wrong here. On a spherical surface you apply spherical geometry. In the Einsteinian space-time manifold used by astronomy a geodesic – the equivalent of a straight line – is defined by the path light takes. Hence a trigonometry with the required modifications works.

You are right that you cannot apply all theorems valid in Euclidian space directly to other spaces; they need to be modified. In spherical geometry, the angles of a triangle add up to more than 180° while in Lobachevskian geometry the angles add up to less than 180°.
o_mlly said:
Our interlocutors simply will not address the contingencies of their pseudoscience that underpins the religion of evolution
Click to expand...
It is fascinating that you seek to denigrate evolution by calling it a religion: “the religion of evolution”. What you are telling us here is that science is superior to religion, because the “the religion of evolution” is inferior to science. In effect what you are doing here is criticising religion.
 
rossum said:
On a spherical surface you apply spherical geometry. In the Einsteinian space-time manifold used by astronomy a geodesic – the equivalent of a straight line – is defined by the path light takes. Hence a trigonometry with the required modifications works.
Click to expand...
The structure of space is an unknown. It may be spherical or it may be elliptical. In ignorance of this basic fact, all claims regarding relative locations of objects in distant space are in the cloud of unknowing. The important point is that the certainty claimed by the poster on distances of stars from earth is not true.
rossum said:
It is fascinating that you seek to denigrate evolution by calling it a religion …
Click to expand...
You are too easily fascinated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top