Atheist are the only ones who can count to a billion. We have more important fish to fry.
2007-07-16 05:42:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
"The second explanation is that the speed of light is under God's control, obviously, so He simply sped up the light to reach us."
Sounds like the answer you'd hear at a star trek convention, to convince an over zealous fan that there wasn't an inconsistency in a few scenes. Blame it on something completely nonsensical. You can't just change the laws of physics just because they make your "theory" impossible.
"All 3 theories are perfectly logical." Don't you mean laughable.
2007-07-16 05:48:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree that our reference frame here on Earth can limit our knowledge of the Cosmos, but all that you did here is put forth suggesstions that jib with your beliefs and offered no scientific data to back up your claims.
There may be a better way to age the Universe (13.7 billion years old) and the Earth (4.5 billion years old), but you have not done so.
also, in Cosmology, there is a theory called "Expansion" that say that 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe went through a rapid expansion that wa a couple of times faster than the speed of light... However, this was proven to be physically possible and no God had anythig to do with it.
Sorry.
2007-07-16 05:45:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by hyperhealer3 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Light doesn't accelerate into a gravity well. This has been tested using lasers going to and from satellites.
Supernovas are so bright (comparable to galaxies) that they can be seen at vast distances. Using the gauge of a nearly (155,000 light years) supernova, we can guage the distance to supernovas that occurred billions of years ago, billions of light years away.
Your "theories" (which aren't theories in any scientific sense) are just making up unobserved processes to explain away facts you don't like. The logic fails when facts are introduced.
2007-07-16 05:48:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You seem to be pretty naive. You have no understanding of science, obviously, and yet you use terms that you cannot possibly understand, such as 'gravity well'. It is not atheists who make the claim that you dislike, it is scientists. Surely you realize your mistake here.
You seem to prefer to believe in a supernatural explanations, and to dislike the opinions of those who prefer to do their own thinking.
Finally, you place a meaningless support on logic to support your thinking. The fact that your theories are logical, although true, is irrelevant to everyone but you. Logic is only worth the value of the premises, and your only premise seems to be that god is the answer to all questions. Since the atheists that you attack cannot possibly be expected to accept your single premise, how could you possibly expect that they would accept your conclusions?
2007-07-16 06:14:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Fred 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
...and don't forget that light has to pass through unicorn dust which slows it down.
The speed of light has been measured in a variety of different ways by REAL scientists who actually understand these things rather than barmy creationist psuedo-scientists deperate to prove that their Holy Book of the Talking Donkey is correct.
Proof that the Earth is billions of years old also comes from right here on Earth in the form of radioactive decay. Various radioactive elements decay in a predictable and constant manner. By measuring the proportion of the pre- and post- decay elements in rocks it has been possible to determine the age of the Earth - at about 4.5 billion years. Again many different techniques have been used by many different fully-qualified scientists and all the various techniques cross-verify each other.
There are only two correct words in your whole question:-
"warped perspective"
which just about sums up the creationist view of everything
2007-07-16 05:42:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
The technology consultant for this fiction tale have been given lots incorrect in this paragraph. lots that i won't be able to wager what our fictitious "genius" is meant to be concluding for or against the super Bang. “in any different case, the carbon could could desire to be popping out of the celebs and subsequently the Earth, made often of carbon, we wouldn’t be right here. So I calculated, the time it could take to create 2 % of the carbon interior the universe, it could certainly could desire to be numerous micro-seconds. Or a pair of nano-seconds, or something like that. an exceedingly small quantity of time. Like quicker than a snap. That isn’t gonna ensue.” components lighter than iron are formed in stars. components heavier than iron are formed in supernovas. Our photograph voltaic gadget is a third technology super call, which capacity it is made up of the stuff from 2 previous super call lifetimes.
2016-11-09 11:18:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, none of them are logical.
1.) Ames used unverifiable assumptions.
2.) This would make God a liar.
3.) The Hubble Effect shows this to be rather unlikely at best, if not false outright.
2007-07-16 05:43:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
But if we existed in a gravity well then surely it would have severe consequences for us physically?
I'm not buying the Magic Magic God made the light go quicker to make the sky pretty.
You'll have to explain the Ames effect. In detail. If you can.
2007-07-16 05:42:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bultimus 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
After the creation of earth, and after Adam and Eve was made, billions of years could have passed before they were casted out of the garden, because they didn't age, or because time didn't exist in the garden.
2007-07-16 05:47:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're so right, I'm sure it's just a big trick. God just makes things look old to fool us. In reality all our memories of the past are implanted, and the world is only 3 minutes old.
2007-07-16 07:38:07
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋