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

[Psykhronic]

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.

If you don't understand that you're full of shit, you're missing everything.

[max-greece]

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.

How do you want me to show you the measurement of the speed of light?

Will a url suffice?

We are not talking about space over large distances - remember Gracie? We are talking about our neighbour galaxy, Andromeda. That's why I chose it.

Right now I am happy to use his theory (even though its largely discredited) because it doesn't apply in this case. He can explain distant objects - but not near ones that yield ages older than the 6,000 years he is aiming at. This is merely one of the problems - his sea salinity proof also needs about 10 times the age he is aiming at.

---

Forgot the damn link:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/wav...dence.html

Its a lovely simple one I used for my daughter when she was about 8 - you should be able to get it too Gracie.

[Doubting Thomas]

But Gracie here believes that the speed of light was faster 6,000 years ago, so that's why we see distant stars.

And for that matter, why would God ever even bother with creating the distant stars and planets if life on Earth is what's important? Aside from navigation they've never really helped us much.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

To a similar or different degree to you missing a functioning brain?

But, please, tell us again. Why is 'modern science' [???] false? I do so love a good laugh, Grace.

[pocaracas]

But Gracie here believes that the speed of light was faster 6,000 years ago, so that's why we see distant stars.

And for that matter, why would God ever even bother with creating the distant stars and planets if life on Earth is what's important? Aside from navigation they've never really helped us much.

Why?... DUH!
Astrology!
Those stars and planets play a role on our individual personalities!!

[Doubting Thomas]

I've never understood why people think that the movement of stars thousands or millions of light years away has any bearing whatsoever on people's lives here on earth. But then I look at religion and it all makes sense: People want to feel special.

[pocaracas]

People ARE special!
They are the special product of some awesome skydaddy and .... skymommy?

[Angrboda]

I've never understood why people think that the movement of stars thousands or millions of light years away has any bearing whatsoever on people's lives here on earth. But then I look at religion and it all makes sense: People want to feel special.

Not to support astrology, but an inadequate theory for a phenomenon is not itself proof against the phenomenon. There are plenty of phenomenon which are undooubtedly real but for which we lack an adequate theory or causal explanation.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I've never understood why people think that the movement of stars thousands or millions of light years away has any bearing whatsoever on people's lives here on earth. But then I look at religion and it all makes sense: People want to feel special.

Not to support astrology, but an inadequate theory for a phenomenon is not itself proof against the phenomenon. There are plenty of phenomenon which are undooubtedly real but for which we lack an adequate theory or causal explanation.

I know of no saved Christians that believe in astrology.

[pocaracas]

Not to support astrology, but an inadequate theory for a phenomenon is not itself proof against the phenomenon. There are plenty of phenomenon which are undooubtedly real but for which we lack an adequate theory or causal explanation.

I know of no saved Christians that believe in astrology.

Do you know of any "saved" christians?
How would you know that they have been "saved"?