(October 9, 2013 at 5:09 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And she still hasn't come up with a plausible reason for why we can see so much universe when it's only 6000 years old.

This one has to be one of the stupider cretinists we have had. And that's saying something.

You have no evidence about the shape of space over large distances.

You have no evidence of the speed of light over large distances.

But I will tell you that the original Big Bang theory was proven wrong, so they had to add the theory of inflation to the Big Bang theory.

There is no proof of inflation.

And the Big Bang is still false, since it violates a number of scientific principle and laws.

(October 9, 2013 at 6:41 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 5:09 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And she still hasn't come up with a plausible reason for why we can see so much universe when it's only 6000 years old.

This one has to be one of the stupider cretinists we have had. And that's saying something.

You have no evidence about the shape of space over large distances.

You have no evidence of the speed of light over large distances.

But I will tell you that the original Big Bang theory was proven wrong, so they had to add the theory of inflation to the Big Bang theory.

There is no proof of inflation.

And the Big Bang is still false, since it violates a number of scientific principle and laws.

Gracie, Gracie Gracie.....

We covered this - remember? You accepted Relativity and the size of the universe - no-one forced you to do it - you volunteered.

So we accept the speed of light over any distance.

But what we did, you and I, was to look at something not at the edges of space, something close by. In fact we looked at the Andromeda Galaxy - remember? The nearest spiral galaxy to us at 2.5 million light years - you do remember this don't you?

Now that means that it took light 2.5 million years to get here - because we accepted Einstein - so the fact that we can see it PROVES the universe to be more than 6,000 years old.

We did it together - remember? Although to be honest it was mostly your own work.

How do you manage to forget these things overnight - every night?

(October 9, 2013 at 6:48 am)max-greece Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 6:41 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You have no evidence about the shape of space over large distances.

You have no evidence of the speed of light over large distances.

But I will tell you that the original Big Bang theory was proven wrong, so they had to add the theory of inflation to the Big Bang theory.

There is no proof of inflation.

And the Big Bang is still false, since it violates a number of scientific principle and laws.

Gracie, Gracie Gracie.....

We covered this - remember? You accepted Relativity and the size of the universe - no-one forced you to do it - you volunteered.

So we accept the speed of light over any distance.

But what we did, you and I, was to look at something not at the edges of space, something close by. In fact we looked at the Andromeda Galaxy - remember? The nearest spiral galaxy to us at 2.5 million light years - you do remember this don't you?

Now that means that it took light 2.5 million years to get here - because we accepted Einstein - so the fact that we can see it PROVES the universe to be more than 6,000 years old.

We did it together - remember? Although to be honest it was mostly your own work.

How do you manage to forget these things overnight - every night?

Relativity does not prove the age of the universe at all.

Where did you conjure up that notion?

You do not know that shape of space over large distances.
You do not know the speed of light over large distances.
That is a false conjecture on your part based on the blindness of an already proven false assumption of no God.

Remember the Big Bang theory violates a number of scientific laws and principles.

What was there before the Big Bang?
What caused the Big Bang?

(October 9, 2013 at 6:41 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 5:09 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And she still hasn't come up with a plausible reason for why we can see so much universe when it's only 6000 years old.

This one has to be one of the stupider cretinists we have had. And that's saying something.

You have no evidence about the shape of space over large distances.

You have no evidence of the speed of light over large distances.

But I will tell you that the original Big Bang theory was proven wrong, so they had to add the theory of inflation to the Big Bang theory.

There is no proof of inflation.

And the Big Bang is still false, since it violates a number of scientific principle and laws.

I'm not asking you to disprove the Big Bang.

I'm asking you to demonstrate how the observable universe is observable If it is only 6000yo.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:30 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 6:41 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You have no evidence about the shape of space over large distances.

You have no evidence of the speed of light over large distances.

But I will tell you that the original Big Bang theory was proven wrong, so they had to add the theory of inflation to the Big Bang theory.

There is no proof of inflation.

And the Big Bang is still false, since it violates a number of scientific principle and laws.

I'm not asking you to disprove the Big Bang.

I'm asking you to demonstrate how the observable universe is observable If it is only 6000yo.

A scientist David Russell Humphreys already has 1 theory that explains it.

But you are missing the point. The "no God" assumption has been disproved. It can never be used in the determination of the age of the universe.

I brought up the Big Bang because that will further disprove the "no God" assumption.


What was there before the Big Bang?
What caused it?

So I guess redshift is simply the change your face makes as atheists refuse your proof, Gracie?

(October 9, 2013 at 7:36 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: So I guess redshift is simply the change your face makes as atheists refuse your proof, Gracie?

David Russell Humphreys already developed a model that accounts for the red shift.

But you miss the point.

The "no God" assumption has already been proven false.

Therefore the "no God" assumption can never be used in determining the age question.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:38 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 7:36 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: So I guess redshift is simply the change your face makes as atheists refuse your proof, Gracie?

David Russell Humphreys already developed a model that accounts for the red shift.

But you miss the point.

The "no God" assumption has already been proven false.

Therefore the "no God" assumption can never be used in determining the age question.

There is no 'no god assumption', merely no 'god assumption'.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:38 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 7:36 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: So I guess redshift is simply the change your face makes as atheists refuse your proof, Gracie?

David Russell Humphreys already developed a model that accounts for the red shift.

But you miss the point.

The "no God" assumption has already been proven false.

Therefore the "no God" assumption can never be used in determining the age question.

You guys crack me up. Humphreys isn't a scientist, he's a sellout, an apologist whose ideas have bigger holes than the hoops he jumps to reach them.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:38 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: David Russell Humphreys already developed a model that accounts for the red shift.

Yeah, guy's wrong. Just thought I'd throw that out there.