Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[KichigaiNeko]

Yup. It's a big scary universe out there chippy

[Zen Badger]

Totally missed the point guys. You are not obligated to respect beliefs, true, but you might learn why some beliefs are worthy of your respect.

You mean like beliefs stating that despite ALL of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, the universe is only six thousand years old?

All because of the opening page and a half of a book written 2500 years ago by a bunch of unwashed goathearders.

No, that is not worthy of any respect at all.

And even less respect is due to people who have no understanding at all of modern physics and demonstrate that repeatedly, yet seem to think that they can come here and argue their case cogently.

Tell me Chipan, what actual books on Evolution, Cosmology, Physics etc have you read?

Because I find that all too often the ONLY sources creationist derive their ideas from are places like AIG and CRI.
Places so full of misinformation,distortions and outright lies that it is impossible to ever gain a true idea of what science really is.

---

That's not evidence. Einstiens theory of relativity though may be used in cosmology is not firm evidence that it's true.

No, the fact that it actually WORKS and makes testable predictions is firm evidence that it is true.

Don't forget that it is Einsteins work that allows us to calculate the output of atomic bombs amongst other things.

Don't even try to claim that GR and SR aren't true.

Since earlier you were trying to validate Humphreys "hypothesis" by saying it agreed with Relativity.

[LastPoet]

Yup. It's a big scary universe out there chippy

To some that mabe true Kichi, but to me the Universe has never been scary, even when I was a kid, only given me awe, amazement and the need to know more about it

[KichigaiNeko]

To xtians it is VERY scary. Hence they cling like children to a Santa Claus for "grown ups"

[chi pan]

Totally missed the point guys. You are not obligated to respect beliefs, true, but you might learn why some beliefs are worthy of your respect.

You mean like beliefs stating that despite ALL of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, the universe is only six thousand years old?

All because of the opening page and a half of a book written 2500 years ago by a bunch of unwashed goathearders.

No, that is not worthy of any respect at all.

And even less respect is due to people who have no understanding at all of modern physics and demonstrate that repeatedly, yet seem to think that they can come here and argue their case cogently.

Tell me Chipan, what actual books on Evolution, Cosmology, Physics etc have you read?

Because I find that all too often the ONLY sources creationist derive their ideas from are places like AIG and CRI.
Places so full of misinformation,distortions and outright lies that it is impossible to ever gain a true idea of what science really is.

---

That's not evidence. Einstiens theory of relativity though may be used in cosmology is not firm evidence that it's true.

No, the fact that it actually WORKS and makes testable predictions is firm evidence that it is true.

Don't forget that it is Einsteins work that allows us to calculate the output of atomic bombs amongst other things.

Don't even try to claim that GR and SR aren't true.

Since earlier you were trying to validate Humphreys "hypothesis" by saying it agreed with Relativity.

I was not saying those theories of relativity aren't true. I was saying they don't support BBT

[frankiej]

I was saying they don't support BBT

A Bacon, Basil and Tomato sandwich? That has relativity written all over it, baby.

[chi pan]

I was saying they don't support BBT

A Bacon, Basil and Tomato sandwich? That has relativity written all over it, baby.

Big bang theory.

[The Grand Nudger]

Less complaining more demonstrating Chip.

Evidence?

[frankiej]

I was saying they don't support BBT

A Bacon, Basil and Tomato sandwich? That has relativity written all over it, baby.

Big bang theory.

Geez, I know. It was a joke. You take shit way too seriously, sweetheart.

[Zen Badger]

To refute your objections....

Ok finen the sun is shrinking at a rate that if you go back to 14 billion years ago the sun would almost be touching where the earth is.

Claim CE310:

The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 169.
Response:

This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

For carbon 14 in the atmosphere being produced and decaying it would eventually reach a state of equalibrium. Scientists estemated this to be at about 50000 years, but we're not there yet. The amount of carbon 14 is increasing. It has not had enough time to reach equalibrium.

This one is a bit longer so I'll just post the link.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...brium.html

The earth is slightly slowing its rotation. If you were to go back a couple billion years the earth would have the rotation of Jupiter. This would be devastating to earths atmosphere.

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible. 
The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans. 
Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

There, all of your objections refuted.

Next please.

---

I was saying they don't support BBT

A Bacon, Basil and Tomato sandwich? That has relativity written all over it, baby.

No you fool!!!

Bacon,bacon and tomato sandwich(preferably with added bacon)

---

I was not saying those theories of relativity aren't true. I was saying they don't support BBT

Did you know that one result of Einsteins work on general relavity was that the universe must be expanding?

Einstein at first refused to believe that this was the case and introduced what he called "the cosmological constant" in order to cancel out the expansion.

It wasn't until red shift was observed in distant galaxies by Erwin Hubble that Einstein realised that his initial calculations had been right all along.

He was later to call it the biggest blunder of his life.

Oh, by the way. BBT predicted not only the CMB but calculated its temperature, which turned out to almost spot on