Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-03-13T12:10:32Z

KyleR: /* Theory 2 */

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-03-13T12:09:36Z

KyleR: /* Theory 2 */

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-03-13T11:48:54Z

KyleR:

== yes ==

----

Yes!!!

'''Comment'''--- If you would please explain your opinion.(This ''is'' supposed to be a ''debate'' topic and one finds it just a touch hard to debate a simple "Yes")

It MUST be possible. Otherwise, why would the President have invaded? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST) (Ah, so that's how it works!)

* I fail to believe that any of the reasons for the invasion was just to promote Democracy. We're bigger enemies with Communist Cuba, why aren't we shoving some good ol' American Democracy down their throats? --[[User:Cpryd001|Cpryd001]] 19:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== No ==

----

== Comment ==
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.''

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)

== Comment ==

I don't believe that we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Although Saddam Hussein was a terrible, evil man, was it really our place to remove him? All of these alleged crimes were done before, and during the Gulf War, yet we didn't bother to call him out on them until now. We even allied with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.
I also raise the point that many gruesome dictators are allied with us, and we wouldn't think of invading their countries. We helped bring Augusto Pinochet into power, and we are close friends with Pakistani dictator Pervez Muscharraf. Why is Saddam any different? Removing Sadddam upset balance in Iraq. With him, the people were miserbale. Without him, the people are still miserable, and the risk of death has increased dramatically.

I do not think democracy is possible in Iraq. Whether or not you think so, Iraq IS in a Civil War. The Sunni and Shi'ite militants couldn't commit all of these attrocities with Saddam Hussein in power, as he would crush any form of insurgency almost instantly. With him gone, there are militants and suicide bombers spawning at speeds too rapidly to stop. They are recruited faster than cockroaches are born, and we can never crush them completely. Sending more troops in will merely add more guns to the fight, and more killing. It might be different if we were fighting a war. But we're not. The militants do not follow the traditional rules of combat, and use guerilla tactics that allow only two people to take out an entire platoon.

We can't invade other countries and force democracy on them. It will not work, and it will make us seem like bullies and cause the rest of the world to hate us. We should have left Iraq alone.

:Well, we're there now, so we can't leave until we've won! (And by 'we' I mean "President George W Bush", and by 'win', I mean "hold out until 1/21/2009, when some other poor chump will have to find a way out of this monkey trap".) --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 17:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:What the hell is victory? Killing more insurgents? There will always be more. Screw "preserving the morale of the soldiers". They all hate it too, and all the Government officials are trying to do is sell this war that's bankrupting the nation and killing thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis. We can't end the war in Iraq without screwing everything up, so we might as well screw it up less by leaving instead of hurting ourselves more. The Iraqis didn't treat us like liberators when we first invaded, so why would they think of us as liberators after all of the atrocities committed in Iraq? --[[User:Raptor Jesus|Raptor Jesus]]

::In Iraq, they essentially want to create a theocratic democracy. This type of government is a contradiction within itself. A democracy where people are fee cannot exist when they are being held under the prejudices of a religion. The nature of religion is discriminatory, because of the time period they were formed in. If a country uses the sometimes discriminating laws of religion as a major part of their own constitution, then true freedom for all cannot exist. The problem is that the Iraqis are so devout that it is very unlikely that they will back down from their concept of a theocratic democracy. --[[User:KyleR|KyleR]]

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-03-13T11:48:25Z

KyleR: /* Comment */