/sci/ - Science & Math

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382560]

>Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments. An important aspect of the creationist model is often overlooked, but it is essential for a proper understanding of the issues. This aspect is the deterioration of a once-perfect creation. Creationists believe this because the Bible states that the world was created perfect (Gen. 1:31), and that death and deterioration came into the world because the first human couple sinned (Gen. 3:19, Rom. 5:12, 8:20–22, 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 26)

>Another aspect of the creationist model is the Bible’s teaching in Genesis chapters 6 to 8 that the whole world was flooded, and that a male and female of every kind of land vertebrate (animals with biblical life in the Hebrew נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyāh sense) were saved on Noah’s ark. A few ‘clean’ animals were represented by seven individuals (Gen. 7:2). The Bible also teaches that this ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. From these assumptions, creationists conclude that these kinds multiplied and their descendants spread out over the earth. ‘Founder effects’ would have been common, so many ‘kinds’ would each have given rise to several of today’s ‘species.’

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382564]

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

Peer reviewed scientific paper shows there hasn't been enough time in the history of the universe for evolution to take place.
Journal BIO-Complexity, "Time and Information in Evolution," Winston Ewert, Ann Gauger, William Dembski, and Robert J. Marks, II once again show that a mathematical simulation of evolution doesn't model biologically realistic processes of Darwinian evolution at all.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index....w/BIO-C.2012.4

I haven't seen much evidence for evolution besides radiometric dating, but creationists have a lot of problems with that.
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

Can mutations create new information?
http://creation.com/mutations-new-information

Fossil Gaps
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes22.html

How to be saved for unbelievers
http://www.creationtoday.org/about/how-to-be-saved/

Creation Resources
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382587]

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382596]

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.5382604]

k

[Anonymous No.5382609]

>>5382596

It isn't circular reasoning because the rocks are dated with another method.

Also you might want to check out ring species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The age of Earth has also been shown through radiometric dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Another problem with the young universe 'model' is that the fact that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.

Some further evidence for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Have a nice day and a merry Christmas.

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382616]

>>5382609
>Another problem with the young universe 'model' is that the fact that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.

when god created the stars their light was already showing to the earth

[Anonymous No.5382621]

>>5382560
Ignore evolution. Let's start simple, like the age of our local universe big bang event, and the age of the earth.

Distant starlight. There are stars which are further than 6,000 light years away. Thus they are older than 6,000 years old.

SN 1987A. The first supernova observed in the year 1987. It was extraordinarily close, so close that we could measure the apparent angle between it and a surrounding gas cloud. it went supernova, and we saw the supernova in 1987. 8 months later, we saw the light which bounced off the nearby gas cloud. High school trig, and voila - we measured the speed of light in the past, as it was ~168,000 (IIRC) years in the past, and it's the same value at today. You cannot fudge it to make it consistent with 6,000 years old. Again, basic high school trig.

[Anonymous No.5382628]

>>5382621
>There are stars which are further than 6,000 light years away

How do you know how far they are away?

inb4 circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.5382630]

>>5382616
So, you agree the universe looks exactly as if there was no god, and it starts 13.7 billion years ago from the big bang? Excellent. We have no disagreement.

[Anonymous No.5382634]

>>5382628
We've measured the speed of light. There are standard candles. Thus, comparing the absolute brightness to the apparent brightness, we can get distance.

[Anonymous No.5382637]

>>5382630
>and it starts 13.7 billion years ago from the big bang

How do you know it was 13.7 billion years? Why not 100 billion?

[Anonymous No.5382638]

>>5382634
How do we know that method works? How do we know the laws of brightness over huge distances?

[Anonymous No.5382641]

>>5382638
Because I believe in a non-malicious god where the laws are learnable by reason and evidence, and the reason and evidence indicates that the speed of light is constant, see up-thread for SN 1987A, and the rest of evidence and obsevation is consistent and supports the idea that the laws of physics here are the same as in the next galaxy over.

[Anonymous No.5382649]

>>5382641
Didn't answer my question, retard.

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382650]

>>5382630
>So, you agree the universe looks exactly as if there was no god, and it starts 13.7 billion years ago from the big bang? Excellent. We have no disagreement.

No im saying god created the stars already showing their light

He obviously wanted us to see them or he wouldnt have even made them

[Anonymous No.5382653]

The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

The universe is shown to be old by several independent types of measurements:

We can measure the distances to some types of stars from their apparent brightness. (We know their absolute brightness from nearby stars of the same type whose distances can be measured geometrically.) We find distances more than fifty million light-years away, which means the universe must be at least 50 million years old for the light to reach us. Measurements based on the brightness of supernovae and galaxies, although less accurate, give distances up to billions of light years.
The Large Magellanic Cloud is 153,000 light years away, as measured by an eclipsing binary star (Cole 2000). This method gives a relatively direct measurement from simple observations. A star's absolute brightness is determined from its temperature and diameter, which can be determined from its spectrum and length of eclipse. Distance is then determined from the apparent brightness.
The orbits of thirteen of the Koronis family of asteroids were traced back and found to match 5.8 million years ago, suggesting that they formed then from a collision of larger asteroids (Nesvorny et al. 2002)
The ages of stars in the oldest globular clusters puts a lower limit on the age of the universe at 12.07 billion years (Chaboyer et al. 1996).
There are white dwarf stars found to be twelve to thirteen billion years old, based on their cooling rate.


Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH200.html

[Anonymous No.5382657]

>>5382616

1. The Bible and Christians say that God is perfect.
2. Perfection encompasses all "good" qualities and no "bad ones"
3. Christians say that God created a Universe which seems to look billions of years old, but in fact he is deceiving us and it was made earlier
4. Deception is a quality of imperfection
5. So either God is imperfect and a deceiver, or you are a shit stain on the undergarments of humanity and all of your arguments are invalid

next.

[Anonymous No.5382663]

>>5382650

How do you know this? You say that god for some reason decided to make stars billions of light years away and then decided to somehow make the light get here (magic I bet), but how do you know this is the case? You've provided no evidence for it. You're just stating it. It's much more likely that the light traveled here itself over time.

[Anonymous No.5382665]

>>5382628

I can name two off the top of my head

1. Speed of light and measurement of 'candles' (i.e. brightness based on distance)
2. Trigonometry (e.g. parallax trig).

next

[Anonymous No.5382670]

>>5382665
How do you know the distance of these "candles"?

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382672]

>>5382657
it doesnt look billions of years old though thats your own interpretation

i say he wanted lights in the sky and
what else was he supposed to do but make the light already hitting the earth?

[Anonymous No.5382673]

>>5382670

I will answer the question but I want you to answer mine first plz

(here)>>5382657

[Anonymous No.5382674]

>>5382673
I don't give a fuck about god or the bible. I'm not OP. I just want to learn how that space shit works because I never learned it in school.

[Anonymous No.5382680]

>>5382674

I don't give a fuck about you or what you want to learn. If you want to learn go read a fucking book or do some studying of the literature. I was posing a question to OP independent of whatever the topic is but relavent to the conversation of God, I just used your post to springboard

[Anonymous No.5382691]

>>5382560

The Noachian Flood is the most inane, mind-bogglingly stupid story any human has ever written. Nothing about it is remotely possible, and if OP (or any other believers in it) want I would love to discuss why it is bullshit, seeing as pretty much everyone is in agreeance that 8 humans and 2 of each land creature (not marine creatures, plants, or "dragons", its in the bible) could not possibly give rise to the diversity of life today

[Anonymous No.5382688]

>>5382670
We don't. We know the apparent brightness because we measured it on Earth. We know the absolute brightness because of our models of physics. We do simple math and derive distance from those two numbers.

[Anonymous No.5382693]

>>5382637
Because of observations of the distant galaxies, when input into the model of GR, show that roughly 13.7 billion years ago all matter occupied the space of a golf ball.

[Anonymous No.5382697]

>>5382693
>all observable matter
fixed

[Anonymous No.5382698]

>>5382670
Hi. A standard candle is a type of variable star. Its luminosity changes over time following a period. Some kind of celestial clock. These stars all work the same, and their brightness were linked to their oscillating period. If you observe how the luminosity changes over time, you can deduce it's absolute brightness. Once you know the absolute brightness, by measuring the brightness you observe, you know how much energy was lost along the way (to be put simply) and how far did its light travel to get to you.

[Anonymous No.5382700]

>hurr durr evolution and the big bang aren't compatible with creationism.

[Anonymous No.5382701]

>>5382672
>what else was he supposed to do but make the light already hitting the earth?

What do you mean by that? The fact that we can see these distant stars means that the light is reaching us.

>it doesnt look billions of years old though thats your own interpretation

Except it does. As mentioned, the distant stars make it look like the Universe is billions of years old, then you have things like radiometric dating methods that show the Earth is at least 3.8 billion years just by looking at samples obtained here.

There's a reason why the age of the Earth isn't accepted as 6000 years old within the scientific community, and it isn't because of a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.5382702]

>>5382698
Actually, the best standard candle is the type Ia supernova. Those stars are good too though.

[Anonymous No.5382703]

>>5382680
So you admit not knowing shit? So you admit being a pop sci retard high schooler who can only regurgitate r/atheism shit but doesn't know anything about science? Isn't it past bed time for you?

[Anonymous No.5382704]

>>5382564
People who reason like this man disgust me. He uses strawmen, he uses tone to imply stupidity, and refuses to discuss the methods. Yeah the big bang SOUNDS rediculous until you explain it. The Bible stays rediculous after it's explained.

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382711]

Just read some of the evidence i posted in that link, you guys think that distant starlight matters but huge anomalies in the universe like this exist

http://creation.com/the-age-and-fate-of-saturns-rings

[Anonymous No.5382713]

>>5382704
the only difference is once you start explaining the Big Bang you see all the independent evidence there is for it, and how it connects to our understanding of the universe.

Except when you try to delve into the Bible all you get is slavery, genocide, raep, God-sanctioned ethnic cleansing, and caveman philosophy

[Anonymous No.5382715]

>>5382693
What observations?

>>5382698
How fast are they oscillating? How do we know the oscillations are not caused by movement in space? How do we know the size of the "candle" and its distance?

[Anonymous No.5382727]

>>5382711

The fact that Saturn's rings are a few million years old doesn't mean Saturn is the same age. You wouldn't judge the age of a dog based on the fleas it has.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof9

Also it annoys me that they say it's a problem for 'evolutionary chronology'. The age of Saturn is independent of evolution.

[Anonymous No.5382733]

Fellow creationist, reporting in.

The Bible states that God created the world in 6 days. However, often the Bible's message isn't the face-value one, but a more metaphorical one. Many passages represent a grander scale, but have to make it in a way for humans to understand.

That said, I, as a creationist, believe in an Old Earth universe. The 6 "days" of creation I see more as periods where God focused on that particular feature, which could have lasted millions, billions of years at a time. I see the Big Bang not as a contradiction to creationism, but more as a representation of God first "stepping" into an unformed universe and creation exploding out from him.

Maybe it sounds silly, but that's my belief.

[Anonymous No.5382737]

>>5382715
I don't know the real periods like that, but I would say around a 1-day period. I'm talking about an increase and decrease of luminosity of the star. No motion of the whole star could cause that. Moreover, the variations are coherent with contractions and expansion of the star, which change its temperature and shift its blackbody spectrum. We don't really need their sizes, as I said we just use a period-luminosity relation. For example, we know a standard candle, like a cepheid star, which has a period of 1.23 days gives off 4.8 solar luminosity when you look at it from 1parsec (I'm pulling this out my ass, it's an example). If you find a cepheid which has that exact period, and measure a luminosity of 1.2 solar luminosity, it means the luminosity was divided by 4. The light of star looses energy as the distance squared like a regular electromagnetic wave. It the energy was divided by 4, then light travelled twice the initial distance, your star is at 2 parsec. Check standard candles on wiki, it would probably be better explained.

[Anonymous No.5382747]

>>5382715
>What observations?

See:
>>5382653
>>5382653

[Anonymous No.5382752]

>>5382733
That is fucking silly you fool. If you can't take on thing literally from the bible, how can you take anything from it literally?

[Anonymous No.5382754]

>>5382752

It's no different from any author writing a novel and speaking metaphorically while also having a direct message. Even Jesus told parables, stories to make a point.

[Anonymous No.5382762]

>>5382754
If a character has the ability to do anything, then literally nothing can contradict him.

[Anonymous No.5382764]

>>5382754
yes, but since it's not stated clearly in the bible what to take litteraly and what to take as symbols, the Bible can't be a serious base for any system. If you can pick anything you want and leave what you don't like, you can justify anything.

[Anonymous No.5382767]

>>5382754
God is fiction! He is a character created centuries ago by clueless desert nomads! Why do you believe a character from the Bible controls the universe when a character from the Kuran claims to do the same thing?

[Anonymous No.5382772]

>>5382767
Well, technically it is the same character. The Kuran is a sequel to the Bible.

[Anonymous No.5382773]

>>5382762
Fair point, sir. Jesus was merely the most recognizable example, he isn't nearly the only one.
An example: The Bible gave instructions to the Jews to not mingle with Gentiles (non-Jews). Now, at the time this was written, the Jews were being plundered left and right, so it had a clear message. But Gentile, metaphorically, is better put "non-Christian." The deeper message is a warning so that the Jews' (I.e. Christians) beliefs would not be squandered and corrupted.

[Anonymous No.5382780]

>>5382764
Never did I say one can pick and choose what is true in the Bible. Everything in it has merit, whether on a literal or metaphorical scale.


>>5382772
>>5382767

Fundamentally incorrect. Islam incorporates Jesus and Christianity (to an extent) with the belief that Jesus is more or less another face of God, Allah, and that he has many faces, thus more ways to Heaven. The Bible states Jesus is the only true way, therefore, there is no real overlap in my eyes.

[Anonymous No.5382791]

>>5382754

and you are the ultimate arbiter of which of God's words are literal and which are metaphorical? please tell me more

captcha: ernestful nflxim

[Anonymous No.5382805]

>>5382791
Why no, I never said that either.
Ah, but I'm a great deal better than the "hurr durr evolution is dumb" Christians, am I not?

I am presenting my beliefs, with actual thought out reasons as to why they *are my beliefs. That means I'm not a bigot, and I actually hear your arguments and reasons. I'm not a blind christfag who believes this because his parents told him too. I am a man, who has made his own soul searching and decision.

[Anonymous No.5382815]

I wish there was a philosophy board so we could talk about problems with the Biblical Christianity as a philosophical system instead of this stale debate.

[Anonymous No.5382845]

> This is what creationists actually believe

[Anonymous No.5382852]

>>5382564
>Peer reviewed scientific paper shows there hasn't been enough time in the history of the universe for evolution to take place.

http://creation.com sounds pretty unbias to me!

Also, Ken Horvind is a dipshit that went to a 1-room university for 3 months for a degree in religious education. He's talking about things just a tad out of his field.

A quote on fossil gaps by the first person to look into the field? I guess the whole hunt is over.

I know you're being a dipshit on purpose, but many jimmies were rustled.

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382870]

>>5382852
>A quote on fossil gaps by the first person to look into the field? I guess the whole hunt is over.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, January 1979, p. 25.

[Anonymous No.5382876]

>>5382805

That's good, I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm just pointing out that if you claim to have the holy word of the creator of the universe, its hard to also claim that you personally know which parts are supposed to be literal and which are just 'lessons'

for example. The Bible condones slavery. I'm sure you don't agree with it, but then wouldn't that mean you are going against the infallible word of God?

[Anonymous No.5382880]

>>5382560

Kent Hovid?
Kent MOTHERFUCKING HOVIND??!?!
That's your evidence?

I'll link you to Kent Hovind's "Doctoral Thesis" and let you faggots decide if he is a legitimate source of information or not

http://wlstorage.net/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

enjoy!

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382881]

>>5382880
I agree with everything in that thesis

[Anonymous No.5382915]

>>5382870
>We now have a quarter of a million fossil species

0,01% done, 99.99% to go!

[Anonymous No.5382918]

>>5382880
Hahahahahahaha

It looks like babby's first research paper.

[Anonymous No.5382920]

>>5382881

Really? Name a few points that you agree with, please. I ask because I doubt you have ever even read it

[Young Earth Creation General No.5382933]

>>5382920
Nah i just skimmed through it but it all seemed like generally good solid stuff

evolution really is a big hoax perpetuated by satan, thats why all those lies are in the textbooks and what have you

and everything on tv and peer pressure people fall into the idea that evolution is 100% concrete without a doubt, but they never really looked seriously into the evidence (there is none)

[Anonymous No.5382938]

>>5382880
>It tells us that man has always been a monotheist and worshiped one god. All of the ancient cultures seem to teach us just the opposite of what we are being taught in our public schools today.

WHAT. Holy hell how did this crook even get his doctorate? He outright lies and from the looks of it there's absolutely no citation in the paper. OP your either a really shitty troll or a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.5382940]

>>5382933
>evolution really is a big hoax perpetuated by satan

heuheuheu.

Well if it wasn't clear before, it is now. OP's an obvious troll.

[Anonymous No.5382950]

>>5382933

Confirmed for troll. Abandon thread.

For any scifags still lurking, here is an excellent (however a bit long) video debate between "Dr" Hovind and an actual PhD of Geology in a university lecture hall. I have watched all of Hovinds video (including his ridiculous theories about how dinosaurs and humans lived together until the humans hunted them to extinction) and this one does a good job summing up the science/creationism debate that goes on today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hxGX1buB-M

[Anonymous No.5382971]

>>5382880

>101 page paper "refuting" science
>no references or citations

Fuck off, troll