The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

[Crossless2.0]

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.

Oh, but the Humphreys model took the world of physics by storm and put the ICR firmly on the cutting edge of research.

Oh, wait . . .

[Zen Badger]

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?

Yes he does, it is shit as it makes no testable predictions at all. And does not explain how light got from the edge of the universe to us in 6000 years.

Anything else?

[max-greece]

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?

Now Gracie - one subject at a time dear.

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

When you accept distance - which you did - then relativity does indeed prove time.

Lets try again - I know you can get this, I just know you can.

Andromeda is nearby - its in our neighbourhood (its on a collision course with our own Milky Way) its that close- just 2.5 million light years away.

Now Relativity - you do understand relativity don't you. The whole idea that the speed of light is constant but time itself varies with speed. You accepted it - remember?

So the speed of light across space is fixed, and we chose a nearby object so we know that there's nothing distorted or funny going on in a distant region of space we know nothing about. No super-massive objects in the way to bend space - just a nice straight line of clean space between us and Andromeda.

So we know how fast light travels - and we know how far (2.5 million light years) so we know how long it took.

So we know the universe is at least as old as it took light to get here (actually plus another thousand odd years as the Persians first saw Andromeda in about 975).

But we (you and me Gracie), we have established without a single reason for doubt that the universe is at least 2,500,000 years old. The flood can't change that, all those pesky fossils can't change that even God can't - because we did it - you and me.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

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?

Now Gracie - one subject at a time dear.

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

When you accept distance - which you did - then relativity does indeed prove time.

Lets try again - I know you can get this, I just know you can.

Andromeda is nearby - its in our neighbourhood (its on a collision course with our own Milky Way) its that close- just 2.5 million light years away.

Now Relativity - you do understand relativity don't you. The whole idea that the speed of light is constant but time itself varies with speed. You accepted it - remember?

So the speed of light across space is fixed, and we chose a nearby object so we know that there's nothing distorted or funny going on in a distant region of space we know nothing about. No super-massive objects in the way to bend space - just a nice straight line of clean space between us and Andromeda.

So we know how fast light travels - and we know how far (2.5 million light years) so we know how long it took.

So we know the universe is at least as old as it took light to get here (actually plus another thousand odd years as the Persians first saw Andromeda in about 975).

But we (you and me Gracie), we have established without a single reason for doubt that the universe is at least 2,500,000 years old. The flood can't change that, all those pesky fossils can't change that even God can't - because we did it - you and me.

David Russell Humphreys already has a cosmology model that uses relativity, solves the light problem and the universe is created 6000 years ago.

But the no God assumption is false.
It cannot be used in the age question.

[Zen Badger]

Are you even reading what we post?

[max-greece]

Now Gracie - one subject at a time dear.

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

When you accept distance - which you did - then relativity does indeed prove time.

Lets try again - I know you can get this, I just know you can.

Andromeda is nearby - its in our neighbourhood (its on a collision course with our own Milky Way) its that close- just 2.5 million light years away.

Now Relativity - you do understand relativity don't you. The whole idea that the speed of light is constant but time itself varies with speed. You accepted it - remember?

So the speed of light across space is fixed, and we chose a nearby object so we know that there's nothing distorted or funny going on in a distant region of space we know nothing about. No super-massive objects in the way to bend space - just a nice straight line of clean space between us and Andromeda.

So we know how fast light travels - and we know how far (2.5 million light years) so we know how long it took.

So we know the universe is at least as old as it took light to get here (actually plus another thousand odd years as the Persians first saw Andromeda in about 975).

But we (you and me Gracie), we have established without a single reason for doubt that the universe is at least 2,500,000 years old. The flood can't change that, all those pesky fossils can't change that even God can't - because we did it - you and me.

David Russell Humphreys already has a cosmology model that uses relativity, solves the light problem and the universe is created 6000 years ago.

But the no God assumption is false.
It cannot be used in the age question.

David Russell Humphreys has a cosmology model that uses relativity that solves the light problem for DISTANT objects.

I didn't choose a distant object. Even if time were running slowly on Earth it would be running slowly on Andromeda too - its our neighbour - remember.

So Andromeda would be in Humphreys' great gravitational depression along with our solar system.

Still needs 2.5 million years. (Are you feeling a bit setup now?) Did ya think I didn't know of Humpreys' (actually flawed) theory?

Nice, but predicable try.

[Doubting Thomas]

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

She must have short term memory loss or something. She seems to forget everything we've been telling her, even in between posts. It's amazing that she can even remember who Jesus is.

But I think I discovered who she is in real life:

---

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.

Maybe she could start quoting Dr. Hovind?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

David Russell Humphreys already has a cosmology model that uses relativity, solves the light problem and the universe is created 6000 years ago.

But the no God assumption is false.
It cannot be used in the age question.

David Russell Humphreys has a cosmology model that uses relativity that solves the light problem for DISTANT objects.

I didn't choose a distant object. Even if time were running slowly on Earth it would be running slowly on Andromeda too - its our neighbour - remember.

So Andromeda would be in Humphreys' great gravitational depression along with our solar system.

Still needs 2.5 million years. (Are you feeling a bit setup now?) Did ya think I didn't know of Humpreys' (actually flawed) theory?

Nice, but predicable try.

Actually Humpreys theory does solve the starlight problem. Whether you agree with his theory is another issue.

You still do not understand that the "no God" assumption is false, so you cannot use it in the determination of age.

Please show the measurement of the speed of light and the shape of space over large distances.

[Psykhronic]

I'm still trying to figure out this "no God" assumption Grace is talking about. The argument reads a lot like "I don't know anything, therefore I'm going to make shit up".

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I'm still trying to figure out this "no God" assumption SoC is talking about. The argument reads a lot like "I don't know anything, therefore I'm going to make shit up".

If you do not understand that the no God assumption is being used and why that could mean that all of modern origin science is false, then you missing a major point.