• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Astronomy supports Creationism

L

LittleNipper

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
11,755
Reaction score
2,411
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Creationists predicted the Universe not only displays the glory, power, and size of GOD --- but that also there would be a continuation of many fully formed galaxies. The secular astronomers predicted that we should see fewer galaxies and that they would be under formed (baby) galaxies, since secular astronomers believe we are looking back in time through the light years. Whose hypothesis proved correct? See this video as see:
 
LittleNipper said:
The Creationists predicted the Universe not only displays the glory, power, and size of GOD --- but that also there would be a continuation of many fully formed galaxies. The secular astronomers predicted that we should see fewer galaxies and that they would be under formed (baby) galaxies, since secular astronomers believe we are looking back in time through the light years. Whose hypothesis proved correct? See this video as see:
Click to expand...

So how do you explain stars being millions of light years away?
 
The usual: at the edge of science we find something we did not predict, the religious nuts say 'Uh-huh! You were wrong! Here is a God explanation!"

For those that care, from scientists:

"Over the last few months, theorists have come up with several ways to explain the universe breakers. One of the most dramatic options would be to add some extra dark energy, the mysterious substance that drives the universe to expand faster and faster, to the early universe, which would speed up all sorts of cosmic processes.


“That would go in the right direction here, in the sense that there’d be bigger reservoirs [of atoms] and maybe more of them at earlier times,” Boylan-Kolchin says. “These early dark energy models do predict faster evolution of structure at early times.”


More mundane options include super-compact early galaxies that could have converted all their gas into stars before the oldest stars had a chance to go supernova and blow it away. Such efficient star formation could explain the universe breakers without breaking the universe, physicist Avishai Dekel of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and colleagues suggested in a paper published May 25 in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.


And there’s still the question of whether the universe breakers’ masses and distances will hold up. A spectrum of one of them has already revealed it to be a galaxy at redshift 5.6 with an actively feeding black hole creating extra light — so not a universe breaker after all."
 
That's funny. Creationism never supported astronomy.

While Galileo was indeed tried and convicted by the Roman Inquisition, he was not imprisoned in the way that is commonly believed. Instead, after his trial and condemnation for heresy in 1633, his sentence was commuted to house arrest. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri.
 
LittleNipper said:
The Creationists predicted the Universe not only displays the glory, power, and size of GOD --- but that also there would be a continuation of many fully formed galaxies. The secular astronomers predicted that we should see fewer galaxies and that they would be under formed (baby) galaxies, since secular astronomers believe we are looking back in time through the light years. Whose hypothesis proved correct? See this video as see:
Click to expand...


Yeah it supports the idea that the Universe was created...by something.
 
Religion attempting to co-opt science is deeply stupid. So stupid that it is not worth explaining to someone who does it why they're wrong. That would take 50 years.

I suggest the Theology forum, @LittleNipper
 
Mr Person said:
Religion attempting to co-opt science is deeply stupid. So stupid that it is not worth explaining to someone who does it why they're wrong. That would take 50 years.

I suggest the Theology forum, @LittleNipper
Click to expand...
I recommend against that forum, Mr. P. LittleNipper cannot have any of his silly ideas corrected there. It's against the rules.
 
Greenbeard said:
Creationists don't believe in the speed of light?
Click to expand...
We believe, however, that perhaps we have never actually measured light speed but that of REFLECTION of light only ---------- here's the theory: This hypothesis suggests that the actual firsthand light travels at a different speed from that of reflected light which measures 299,792,458 metres per second.
 
Last edited:
LittleNipper said:
We believe, however, that perhaps we have never actually measured light speed but that of REFLECTION of light only ---------- here's the theory: This hypothesis suggests that the actual firsthand light travels at a different speed from that of reflected light which measures 299,792,458 metres per second.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that reflected light is not light?
 
LittleNipper said:
This hypothesis suggests that the actual firsthand light travels at a different speed from that of reflected light which measures 299,792,458 metres per second.
Click to expand...

No. The speed of reflected light can't be measured either.

What is measured is the round trip time of the combined travel of light from its source to the reflecting surface, and from the reflecting surface back to the sensor. The the distance traveled is divided by this time to come up with the speed, which averages 299,792,458 meters per second over the course of the round trip.
 
LittleNipper said:
We believe, however, that perhaps we have never actually measured light speed but that of REFLECTION of light only ---------- here's the theory: This hypothesis suggests that the actual firsthand light travels at a different speed from that of reflected light which measures 299,792,458 metres per second.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between light and reflected light?
 
LittleNipper said:
We believe, however, that perhaps we have never actually measured light speed but that of REFLECTION of light only ---------- here's the theory: This hypothesis suggests that the actual firsthand light travels at a different speed from that of reflected light which measures 299,792,458 metres per second.
Click to expand...


The speed of light is a constant, c, that has been confirmed by multiple experiments. Do you have any evidence to suggest that c can change?
 
LittleNipper said:
Reflected light is not directly from the point of origin, but has been interpreted or redirected. It's not pure.
Click to expand...
Light (electromagnetic waves) has a complex description. It has polarity and phase along with frequency and direction. A reflection will change the phase along with the direction. To completely describe an EM wave you need a Qbit.
 
Last edited:
LittleNipper said:
We believe, however, that perhaps we have never actually measured light speed but that of REFLECTION of light only ---------- here's the theory: This hypothesis suggests that the actual firsthand light travels at a different speed from that of reflected light which measures 299,792,458 metres per second.
Click to expand...

Yet whatever the true speed, which may well be what we believe or close to it, C remains a constant. That's the key.
 
Oh look, more creationist nonsense. Its always comical how Creationists try to use science to prove their views when they no clue about science.
 
That amazing telescope pictured in the still of the OP is making some amazing discoveries, none of which point to a god.

Did not watch. May as well watch a flat earth video.
 
No, it doesn’t.

Creationists strangely lean on real science as support for their non scientific beliefs. They cherry pick science to support their beliefs and denigrate science when it doesn’t. Make up your minds and get off the fence. Science isn’t like the Bible that can be cherry picked and also claimed as being authoritative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom