27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 148:
Line 148: +
no edit summary
:::::::: The Big Bang conflicts with observations also, which is why so many scientists reject it, but your point about the Bible disagreeing with observations ignores the creationist models that explain it, such as those of Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett.
:::::::: The Big Bang conflicts with observations also, which is why so many scientists reject it, but your point about the Bible disagreeing with observations ignores the creationist models that explain it, such as those of Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Ah, so appeal to authority is fallible (unless, of course, it supports your argument -- then it's infallible). I think all appeal to authority is fallible, and the way you test it is to compare it to reality. If you're correct, then reality will support your assertion. As for Humphrey and Hartnett, the only way to get around the travel time argument to the Andromeda Galaxy is for them to either compute a grossly different velocity for the speed of light or to measure a grossly different distance to the galaxy. If you've seen evidence and numbers for either one, then please quote them here. Don't quote hand-waving or vague (ie, no math) arguments about c-decay or "white hole" cosmology. It's really a simple argument. v = d / t. To get a different t, you need a different v or a different d (or both). Just quote there numbers and show me how you get t < 6000 years. I'll even do the division for you.--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 08:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==
== Young earth creationist view ==