Travelers Rest, SC
Drove past Bob Jones University today. Strangely, I had no desire to stop.
Modern Physics This course investigates the elementary structure of matter, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, the nature of radioactivity, and the issues involved in estimating the age of the earth.
 | Dni6Suh on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | DnielSuh on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
| v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | v0Aerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
 | 9xAerothe on Continuing Our Non-posting of… |
A Clown in the Middle 
Thought he was a believer in the ‘young universe’ theory. Actually was fairly sure he was not only the champion of it in his day, but was extremely adament about it. Einstien, not Jones
Hello and welcome Wes,
Hmmm. Not sure about that, it certainly sounds untrue. Do you have a cite for that? Not sure how one could formulate relativity and be a YEC. Not sure how anyone with a passing familiarity with cosmology could be a YEC.
Hi Blipey,
Just so you know. Joe G is “neglecting” to publish my responses on his blog. This, even though he is directly addressing me in his posts. I informed him I would no longer waste my time if he holds my comments in moderation.
I consider this good fortune.
Zachriel
To ZAchriel,
I only hold your lies- For example I never responded to Dr Allen because HE NEVER posted on my blog. You, however, did post and my resp0onse was to you. Also you allegedly asked Prof Allen about a paternal family tree, which is odd because all along you were discussing a patrilineage. And that is something you never admitted to. IOW you are a liar.
To clowny,
YEC is about the EARTH, not the cosmos. The Earth could be young even in an old universe. Also if one wants an accurate age for the Earth one must know something about HOW it was formed.
IOW once again you have proven to know nothing about the views you oppose. But arguing from ignorance is your MO, so carry on…
Welcome back, Joe.
Are you aware that cosmology speaks to how planets are formed? Believe it or not, we have a theory on how solar systems (including ours) form. As such, anyone with a passing familiarity with cosmology couldn’t possibly be a YEC.
Cosmologists try to explain how planets are formed, but they have never verified any of their speculations. IOW no one knows how planets are formed.
Also no one knows how solar systems are formed- speculations should NEVER be confused with actual scientific data. The best we have is a working hypothesis- the nebula hypothesis- which has many problems.
Ya know we once taught that all solar systems would be pretty much the same. However now we know better.
And ONE MORE TIME- the age of the cosmos has NOTHING to do with the age of the Earth.
BTW today’s cosmologists are part of the “happy accident” crowd. And anyone who understands science understands that the “happy accident” platform is void of predictive power as well as being void of experimental scrutiny.
One more thingy- YECs have an explanation of how the universe was formed in a YEC scenario- It’s called “Starlight and Time” by Dr Russell Humphrey.
And anyone with a passing familiarty with science knows that science is not conducted via imagination and speculation. Yet that is all yopu side ever produces.
Universal common descent- “excused” from experimental scrutiny because vast eons of time are required.
The nebula hypothesis- same excuse.
And BTW there are cosmologists and astronomers who are YECs. And I bet they have more than a passing familiarty with cosmology.
Joe,
What is the speed of light?
How far away are the stars?
What’s the age of the sun?
If the sun is older than the Earth, what is your interpretation of the Genesis creation story?
If your argument boils down to “no one was there to see it”, how do you believe the forensics lab when they say that the defendant did it?
blipey,
Read “Starlight and Time” and if you have any questions feel free to ask.
However if you continue to insist on arguing from ignorance then no one can help you.
Ya see clowny- as I have already told you- we can have an old universe and a young Earth.
Relativity is the key… (however you, being a clown, will not undertsand what that means)
BTW your position still amounts to nothing more than happy accidents- happy because they were kept and accidents because they were not planned.
IOW your position does not have any predictive power nor can it be objectively tested.
What is the speed of light?
It depends on where the light is. Gravity affects light speed.
How far away are the stars?
Which stars?
What’s the age of the sun?
You have to know HOW it was formed to answer that. And the “how” in your scenario is many cosmic collisions. And that is beyond the realm of science.
If the sun is older than the Earth, what is your interpretation of the Genesis creation story?
If Humphreys is correct then Genesis looks OK.
However seeing that you are totally ignorant of Humphreys’ model and you have no clue about science in general, you will keep on with your ignorant ways…
If your argument boils down to “no one was there to see it”, how do you believe the forensics lab when they say that the defendant did it?
In your position forensics is a waste of time. That is because anyone who says a designer was involved just gave up on finding a “non-telic process”.
And BTW YOUR argument boils down to “no one was there to see it so we can make shit up”.
Thanks, Joe. If you ever get around to reading any books on cosmology and stellar formation, feel free to comment. If you ever get around to actually reading my comments, feel free to comment (you’ll note I never said a young earth was impossible, just that all evidence points to it not being young).
If you ever find an explanation for radioactive isotopes that involves the Earth being 6,000 years old, feel free to let us know.
Otherwise, I think others have said what you have to say–and a lot of them have been dead for a while, a long while.
If you ever get around to reading any books on cosmology and stellar formation, feel free to comment.
I have read several books on those very topics. That is why I said what I did. We don’t know how planets are formed and we don’t know how stars are formed. Sure we have speculations, but that is about it.
As for the laws that govern the universe- the best your position has is “they just are the way they are” Hawking in “A Briefer History of Time”.
If you ever get around to actually reading my comments, feel free to comment (you’ll note I never said a young earth was impossible, just that all evidence points to it not being young).
I read your diatribe. It is meaningless. And you certainly haven’t offered anything that would suppport your position.
On the other hand I offered a scientific position as offered by a YEC that explains a young Earth in an old universe. YOU refuse to read about it.
IOW once again you choose to argue from ignorance- par for the course.
If you ever find an explanation for radioactive isotopes that involves the Earth being 6,000 years old, feel free to let us know.
Strawman. I NEVER said ANYTHING about a 6,000 year old Earth, nor did I say anything about isotopes.
You are incapable of following along.
And it is obvious that you would rather argue from ignorance than actually learn about the opposing views you disparage.
Perhaps you should read about gravitational time dilation
From blipey’s first comment:
Not sure how one could formulate relativity and be a YEC.
Dr Humphreys has done just that. He posits that the “big bang” was actually a white hole. And as its event horizon passed Earth billions of years worth of processes took place outside of it. Gravitational time dilation.
and:
Not sure how anyone with a passing familiarity with cosmology could be a YEC.
Yet there are YECs who are cosmologists and astronomers.
As for making (terrestrial) planets- it is as I have already said- Happy Accidents:
Disk-shaped nebula of dust and gas
Dust grains collide and merge
Large (1 mm) dust grains fall into a thin, dusty sheet
Collisions produce planetesimals 1 m to 1 km across
More collisions produce planets
Planets stir up the leftover planetesimals
Planetesimals then collide and fragment
A cascade of collisions reduces fragments to dust
Planets sweep up some of the dust
Radiation and a wind from the central star remove the rest
fromTerrestrial planets grow by accumulation of smaller objects
White Hole Cosmology:
How old is the Earth, Joe?
blipey,
No one knows how old the Earth is.
As I have already told you in order to know the age of the Earth one has to first know how it was formed. (read my first comment in this thread)
And if the only model one has to go on is the multiple lucky collision model then one only has a guess and nothing more.
Thanks Joe. How old do you think the Earth is?
I don’t know blipey, but I do know that there are several issues involved in estimating the age of the earth.
And I also know that anyone who sez they know the age of the Earth is nothing more than a snake-oil salesman.
I love hearing the one about a 4.5byo Earth with an Earth/ Moon system that is less than 1.5byo, yet that formed when the Earth was still mostly molten- over 4bya.
As for isotopes- one has to know what they were subjected to. A faster decay rate just releases more heat. And that is easily lost on a planet without an atmosphere.
No guess at all? No inkling? There’s such a paucity of evidence that you couldn’t even hazard a guess?
How old do you think the Earth is, Joe? What’s your opinion?
How old do you think the Earth is blipey?
And what is your rational for it?
Do you think there are any issues in estimating the age of the earth?
So, no idea at all, Joe? Thanks. I know it’s a long question with big words so I’ll state it again:
Joe (that’s you), H-o-w OLD is the E-a-r-t-h (that’s the planet we live on)?
Don’t tell me your thinking behind it. Just give the number; we’ll start there.
Here. I’ll get us started. 6 billion.
What’s your number?
There’s a big boy, Joe. Who’s a big boy, who’s a big boy?
When it gets down to talking specifics, Joe G runs away like the asshat he is. Come on, Joe, what’s your number?
Hey asshole you didn’t finish answering my questions. So YOU could start there.
My answer is “I don’t know”. And I don’t care if you don’t like that answer. It isn’t going to change just because a dumbass clown shit her diaper and needs it changed.
Thanks again, Joe.
We now know that you think it is equally likely that the Earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion years old. That’s why we like you.
At least the YEC crowd has the balls to stand up and give their number. That’s a position that I can understand (if not agree with). Yours, on the other hand, is just candy-ass. You believe the Earth is 6,000 years old but don’t have the balls to say so–because you like to pretend to science.
Only assholes “know” such a thing.
Actually they give a range of numbers 6K-12K.
My position is TRUTHFUL. But I understand how that would upset a moronic clown.
Wrong again, as usual.
And BTW you don’t know anything about science.
BTW clowny- there is a better chance that you are a child molester than there is that I think the earth is 6,000 years old.
Fantastic then. You should have no problem telling us how old you think the Earth is, then?
Well, what’s your number?
blipey,
I don’t know how old the Earth is. THAT is my answer.
That you have a hissy-fit because I won’t play your stupid guessing game just further exposes you as the asshole you are.
But let’s recap-
1-blipey doesn’t think there are any issuesinvolved with estimating the age of the Earth.
Yet he gives a number 1.5 billion years more than the standard accepted age of 4.5 billion years.
2- blipey says that no one with a passing familiarity with cosmology can be a YEC.
Yet I provided just that- YECs who are familiar withy physics and cosmology. I even provided the accepted YEC version of cosmic origins.
Unphased by again being exposed as a no-nothing smegma licking fool, clowny then tries to atack me just because I am being honest. blipey cannot have honesty on its blog.
Joe. You are refusing to give a number because you know it will make you look stupid, not because you don’t have one.
I claimed that you thought the Earth was 6,000 years old. In response, you said, “there is a better chance that you are a child molester than there is that I think the earth is 6,000 years old.”
That implies that you have a number that isn’t 6,000. Otherwise, you would no object so vehemently. What is your number? It doesn’t have to be right or wrong; you don’t have to defend it (at the moment). What’s the number. Hint; “Child molester” is not a number.
I gave you mine. There may be some problems with it; we’ll get into that. To have an honest and productive discussion, we need to know what the other is claiming and believes. You know my number. What’s yours? (Another hint: this is kind of like, “Who do you think is going to win the World Series?”. You don’t know for sure, but you could certainly offer up an answer. Try it.)
Your position on most everything is not productive to discussion, Joe. Your position is merely “Your position is dumb because you’re a child molester and also an atheist who is a Darwiniac.”
You’re very reactionary. It would be better if you stated what your position was and then we can attempt to find common ground.
I’ve stated my position. I’ve stated what I think is yours, because you have failed to do so. Correcting any misconceptions is up to you.
blipey:
No, it implies that I know the Earth is not 6,000 years old.
I stated my position. That you refuse to understand it just proves you are a demented loser.
And your position on everything is standing, with your head up your ass.
Now I am sure you have some children to fondle.
And BTW you are welcome for the geography lesson.
LoL!!!
If you know the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old, that must mean you have another age in mind.
My new guess is 12,000 years old.
Now, if you say the Earth isn’t 12,000 years old, I’ll just guess another age. Pretty soon, we’ll have you narrowed to an age range you agree with.
Of course, you could save everyone the trouble of guessing and just tell us what age range you believe is acceptable for the age of the Earth.
Right now you’re down for:
Age of Earth = Everything except 6,000 years.
blipey, you are just a moronic clown.
And stop throwing around the word “logic” because you obviously don’t know what it means.
Ya see clowny YOU made a claim. YOU said I thought the Earth was 6,000 years old.
I do not think that.
You know why?
2 reasons both already presented:
1. Neither I nor anyone else on this planet knows how old the Earth is.
2. A 6,000 year old Earth is based on someone’s interpretation of a collection of books that I do not hold to be authoratative.
Now only a stupid, fucked up imbecile would not be able to understand what I just posted.
IOW blipey the clown will continue to refuse to understand my position even though I have put it in writing.
So blipey, please be sure to inform me when you are in the New England area again. I really want to demonstrate natural selection for you.
So, you are open to the possibility of a 6,000 year old Earth?
Or are you not open to that age for the Earth?
It’s real easy. If you are open to it, fine. If not, that means that you think there is good reason to disbelieve a 6,000 year old Earth. If that is the case, what are those reasons?