Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Perry

  The character you call god is a moral monster. He is beneath contempt.

  Cofty,

  
  

  That is your definition, not the one most people accept or that is in the dictionary:

  
  

  Full Definition of god

  1. 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: asa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

  
  

  The fact that you make up your own definition of God is quite telling. You claim to be an atheist, yet regularly state your contempt for God, the one that doesn't exist. How can you have contempt for Someone that doesn't exist? If he does exist, how can you judge him since he is the standard for goodness and not you? You are quite illogical in your railing against that which you sometimes assert doesn't exist, and if he does exist would be impossible to judge according to the definition in the dictionary.

  Most everyone here is aware of your unshakable assertion that the universe created itself. The fact of the matter is everyone INCLUDING YOU knows that God exists. You just don't like him. And it is your perfect right to hate him, just as it is others' perfect right to love him.

  All this of course has nothing to do with how starlight can exist in a young universe, which gravitational time dilation offers a plausible explanation for, hence the purpose of this thread.

  Perry
• 

  cofty

  Perry read my words again.

  "The character you call god is a moral monster. He is beneath contempt"

  If I said Hannibal Lecter was a psychopath it wouldn't imply I thought Red Dragon was an autobiography.

  Your logic is facile. You can't assert god exists because the dictionary says so FFS!
• 

  Perry

  Perry and young earth creationists pull only selective biased information that supports his personal held beliefs, tossing away or avoiding information that doesn't support his beliefs, hence he practices intellectually dishonesty

  Finkelstein,

  Are you comfortable the Materialist position described by geneticist Dr. Richard Lewontin below?

  ‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

  
  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
• 

  Finkelstein

  That is your definition, not the one most people accept or that is in the dictionary:

  He's referring to the god of which the ancient Hebrews worshiped and to a lesser extent his supposed son.
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

  What a stupid nonsensical and apathetic assertion ! is this the kind people or ideology you support Perry ?
  

  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Yes we should immediately stop open scientific inquiry and investigation for its wastefully redundant and carries no value for humanity whatsoever in its inherent endeavor.
  

  What we should do instead is adhere to ancient mythological teachings for the answers to are existence and how we can improve are living existence through those ancient writings and expressive thoughts ?
  
• 

  Mephis

  There is only a "controversy" with those that won't accept facts. The existence of young dinosaur soft tissue, blood cells, DNA etc. is well documented.

  The dimwit who wrote that article somehow has managed to confuse 10,000 years and 1.5 million years. The article in Nature covering the study is here: http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

  If a creationist needs to lie (and yes, that is a lie) about something as simple as a scientific paper he's quoting then it's pretty clear that the discussion is not a scientific one. The dinosaur DNA idea is widely disputed - I know, socially, people who work with remains much more recent than that and who are at the cutting edge of the field. We're only just about able to pull out Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA from a couple of hundred thousand years ago. So there's no controversy about something which hasn't passed peer review studies. Collagen and red blood cells, if not contamination, then that's still being kicked about to see if it stands up.

  Science isn't a religion. You disprove a major theory, you get tenure and a Nobel prize and your name goes into history. You disprove a religion's foundational beliefs and all the believers get upset and start looking for pitchforks and torches.
• 

  prologos

  while science limits itself to research only the searchable, the "all" there is, it will inevitable touch the realm of the beyond, the energy content of the nothing or void, the pre-beginning time, the idea of multi-and baby universes beyond the reach of of our present instrumentation. so it is not all materialism in the all.

  On the ueber- light speed wheel, proposed by juandefiero:, the signal from a panning beam of a pulsar reaches an apparent hyper "c" velocity, but that is just like a shadow, not transporting a signal along, between the objects that it illuminates in sequence.
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hi there Perry,

  You quoted an article called: DNA in Dinosaur Bones from the Institute for Creation Research. Early on in the article the author/s wrote: "Fossil experts have studied original dinosaur tissues and biochemicals for a long time. When tyrannosaur and hadrosaur bones from Montana were viewed under a microscope, they were found to harbor fresh-looking bone cells called osteocytes. Researchers even verified original—not mineralized—dinosaur proteins called collagen and elastin in 2009."

  In 2014 she co-authored a paper called: Synchrotron Chemical and Structural Analysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Blood Vessels: The Contribution of Collagen Hypercrosslinking to Tissue Longevity
  

  In the paper the researchers came to the following conclusions:

  • T-Rex tasted just like chicken. The collagen corresponded to the type found in chickens and so it strengthens the hypothesis that the therapod dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds.
  • They also concluded that what was thought initially to be red blood vessels turned out to be an Iron mineral (goethite).
  • Lastly this mineral was possibly responsible for the preservation of the collagen in the first place through two possible chemical pathways.

  
  

  Footnote: Mary Schweitzer is an evangelical Christian.
  

  Also see: God of the gaps
• 

  talesin

  Perry

  As I pointed out on page one of this thread, your premise is destroyed in the first sentence, by its inaccuracy. You ignored my comment, and I wish to know why. Have you ignored me because your statement is indefensible? Or am I being too polite?