Actually the thought is that everything is moving away from each other, with some "local exceptions (colliding galaxies, black holes, other large gavitational forces for eg.). In other words, no matter what cosmological vantage point one is in, it would seem as though everything was moving away from you. We do have a galaxy heading our way.
JerryB,
While science is not one person, the field is made up of people. Unfortunately, we still are not perfect. There are a lot of things that would be much better if we were, regardless of the topic. that doesn't mean that the entire human race is going in the wrong direction.
I will look for a table of Hubble's law over the years to make a point that I can't make without it.
My point was that scientists should not be anti-christian, but stay out of religon all together. It should start with observation, not a several thousand year old phylosophy. If you start making science Christian friendly, then you need to make it Budist friendly and Muslim friendly etc.. Your quote showed what the author said was an anti-Creation reaction by a scientist to the Big Bang theory. He also pointed out how it was long thought that the universe was infinite in time and space (which BTW, is a view that is coming back). Couldn't it also be that the reaction was because it was a long held view and people, scientist or not, tend to not automatically accept drastic change very well.
Here is an interesting read regarding Behe, and it doesn't concer his lame irreducable "Mouse Trap" example.
from a lecture at University of New Mexico...
quote:
Behe also discussed Barry Hall's experiments. "Barry Hall at the University of Rochester has been trying to work on the laboratory evolution of bacterial metabolic pathways where he goes in and knocks out an old pathway. His thesis was that you'll be able to see a number of gradual changes that gradually build up the old pathway that was knocked out given appropriate selective pressure. And in 25 years, he has not been able to do so. That's consistent with Intelligent Design theory. If he had been able to show that the pathway could have been built up again, then we could say that any idea of Intelligent Design that says things of that complexity need intelligent inputs would be falsified."
The problem here is that Hall's experiments were successful. Not only did the bacteria develop a brand new replacement for the knocked-out gene for making a galactosidase enzyme; it also developed new proteins that work with the new enzyme to control its expression, and to induce lac permease. A system Behe should describe as "Irreducibly Complex" evolved right in the Lab! Behe dismisses Hall's work by noting the new genes were cobbled from existing genes, and not made from scratch. In other words, he criticizes the experiment for acting too much like, well... evolution! But, as Douglas Futuyma wrote of Hall's work in his book Evolution (1986, Sinauer Associates, MA), "Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a better demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations."
I have read Behe. I was first introduced to him during an "origins" class I took a few years ago. To stay well rounded and well informed another good book other than "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller is "Tower of Babel, Evidence Against the New Creationism". Both have serious biochemical problems with Behe's "irreducibly complex" claims.
Song, I just dont' "get" your posts. I wonder if we're on the same wavelength. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Yeah JerryB, I've been known for that type of thing or thinking. :o--> Throwing in something that seems to be outside the subject at hand. I think it was def 59 that tagged it "streams of consciousness". My buds at work call it "Steve's World" :D--> and then they strike the pose a rocker on stage and sing "Does anybody remember laughter?". My Blushing Bride tells me, "Steven you're saying things only you understand. Can you be a little more specific?"
So,I threw in "felix culpa" ~~~ the idea that the Fall of man was fortunate because it brought us good (in some views, knowledge; in others, redemption through Christ), so that our end was better than our beginning
In Christian theology the fall is the notion that the original sin of Adam and Eves disobedience of God in the Garden of Eden brought about various changes in the perfectly created world, including illness, strife and death. It is a widely interpreted concept with many implications for other elements of theology.
Although the "Fall" is not mentioned by name in the Old Testament, the doctrine is taught in Genesis 3, and foundational to Paul's teaching of the Gospel in Romans 5:12–19 and 1 Corinthians 21–22.
Felix Culpa (the fortunate fall)One interpretation of the doctrine of the fall is that it is necessary in order human's might benefit from God's grace. It includes the notion that, had mankind not been given the capacity for evil, our choice through free will to either serve God or not would not have been as meaningful.
There is, however, a second interpretation of 'felix culpa.' If Eve had not given the fruit to Adam to eat, none of us would be here to enjoy this wonderful world.
~~~ (Fall (religion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
Or if one wishes a kewl view of this subject ~~~Langland, Milton, and the felix culpa.
Soohhh, I thought "felix culpa" was a nice throw in re the topic, "The Way's views on life/death before Adam".
Now on a "side bar", and since the weekend has, well ended, I'll have a Bud Light and ask if any one is familiar (why is "liar' in familiar?) with what was discovered as a static noise that is evident through all the universe and it was not pigeons.
Dig it JB
&
Peace bacatcha
Steven
there is more to this universe than seems to be. all i can do is see what is evident to me and also to others. but there are so many others viewing. the line is so long we die before we know what we attempt to understand.
You or I have gotten to the place where I understand you, think I understand you, or think that I think I understand you more than half the time — which possibly should be causing me some concern.
You or I have gotten to the place where I understand you, think I understand you, or think that I think I understand you more than half the time — which possibly should be causing me some concern.
Cynic, I don't know what to think about that hickie on your neck. What's the big word for hickie? epistolary? I dunno either~~~ and causes me some concern that I should read the Websters again.
Originally posted by Lindy: Actually the thought is that everything is moving away from each other...In other words, no matter what cosmological vantage point one is in, it would seem as though everything was moving away from you. We do have a galaxy heading our way.
Basically true from what I've read... except cosmology says that astromomers, all of 'em, Christian or secular observe that no matter what direction one looks in "everything" is moving away from US.
"Astronomers have confirmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are ‘quantized’, tending to fall into distinct groups. According to Hubble’s law, redshifts are proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us. Then it would be the distances themselves that fall into groups. That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells concentric around our home galaxy, the Milky Way.
The Table diagram of Hubble's law shows three rainbow lines, top to bottom as being grouped far, medium and near in terms of distance. Left to right; Blue (violet) on the left going through the color spectrum to red on the right.
The colors represents "shifts." Blue being smaller and red larger, hence the further something is away; the larger the shift. It also includes black "Hydrogen lines" that form an angular pattern as the cross the colored bands.
By 1924 most astromoners has decided that the "white nebulae" were outside our galaxy. Hubble calculated distances with a new, more accurate technique, confirming that more distant nebulae have larger redshifts.
Hubbles distance calculations, published in 1929, revolutionized previous ideas of the universe. The 'white nebulae' as it turns out are galaxies like our own Milky Way. They say each is a 12 million light years away from its nearest neightbors.
The Hubble Speace Telescope can photograph galaxies as far as 15 billion light years away. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies within that distance.
According to Hubble’s law, the cosmological part of the redshift z of each galaxy corresponds to a particular distance which is a radius r. It "transforms redshift groups to distance groups." You can solve for the distance with a (supplied by me and simplified) formula:
"r equals c over H"
H corresponds to two redshift intervals 1.6 and 1.3 million light years.
Or. The radius (distance) of a galaxy from the center of the universe is calculated by the relationship of its redshift intervals according to the Hubble's law distances that sets it near its neighboring galaxies.
Our galaxy is not located in the center of the pattern it is NEAR the center. There is a complex series of formulae starting with:
"r to the t power = the square root of: r squared, plus a squared, minus 2a,r times the cosign theta"
A is the distance the Milky way is from the calculated mathematical center of the universe. Continuing to solve for a it has been found that our home galaxy, using the smallest observed interval would put us within about 100,000 light years, which is the diameter of our galaxy.
The idea, s, we live in a galactocentric cosmos —a universe that has a unique geometric center very near our own home galaxy, the Milky Way.
In other words; recent, within the last two decades, scientific evidence based on the Hubble law and aided by discoveries made possible by the Hubble telescope concludes two things:
1. The universe has a center.
2. Our galaxy is at the center of the universe.
There's some science. People have done this by "simply" looking at the universe and doing some calculations.
You have your redshifts (expansions) and doppler shifts (coming nearer) that occurr simultaneously, indicating a sort of undulation in the universe as it expands.
Very little in science is accepted by "everyone" so I'm not saying this is the be it all end all thinking.
~~~The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena . . . Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light [an image of earth taken by Voyager I]. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.~~~
I grabbed that one above somewhere from google cyber space.
If our galaxy is close to the center of the universe
Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'y?-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn —more at WORTH
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks… to choose from —G. B. Clairmont>
and all the above definition of infinite and finate, then exactly where is the center of the universe?
If our galaxy is near the center of the universe, are not all other galaxy's? Is our galaxy more near to the center than others? Then all galaxy's have then been near the center of the universe.
So, then, it ALL did not happen at once in a moment all was created and here WE are.
~~~
But in a moment (atomos) in the twinkling of an eye we shall all be changed ~~~ or sum thin(g)k like that
~~~
So, HOPE is or seems to be a choice of some sort of stock this terra firma we live upon. AND no one can deny we live upon this earth that some have song we are only passing through~~~
So what is our, those who are presently here, the conclusion of the matter? Red lights green lights yellow lights blue lights and all the spectrum of light that we can conceive to be an answer. S h i t man Hubble telescope? Can ya imagine to have a telescope shot into the space above this earth because ya want to know something and find billions of galaxy's beyound us~~~
excuse me while I change a fuse, i mean light bulb
~~~The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena . . . Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light [an image of earth taken by Voyager I]. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.~~~
I grabbed that one above somewhere from google cyber space.
Oh yeah? Its from a book called 'Pale Blue Dot: A vision of the Human Future in Space' by Carl Sagan.
Page 9. Published by Ballantine Books in 1977
quote:
Originally posted by Long Gone: It figures all that uncited quoting would come from AiG.
Yeah it figures. Even that quote Song posted is on AiG.
In fact everything, every single piece of science, every scriture, every authorevery concept that has been mentioned, quoted spit on or even casually mentioned on this thread is on AiG.
Yeah it figures. Even that quote Song posted is on AiG.
In fact everything, every single piece of science, every scriture, every authorevery concept that has been mentioned, quoted spit on or even casually mentioned on this thread is on AiG.
Hmmm.....
All of it.
.... and your successful rebuttal is .....?
Oh, by the way, about all those [Carl Sagan mode] billions and billions [/Carl Sagan mode] of light years, ... the fact that they are indeed billions, .....
... now, I'm no mathematical genius (and neither was Einstein, by the way), but I find it rather difficult to cram, even with my handy-dandy Ronco Super Family Sized Cramer (order now for $6.95, and we'll throw in a dicer autographed by Dr. Hovind himself absolutely *free*), 15 billion years into 6,000 years. ... Sideways, even.
The "success" of a rebuttal has nothing to to with the quality of the rebuttal.
I originally posted the link to the Answers in Genesis website because they have an impressive array of information and have engaged in "all" of the arguments on the subject.
I was "amazed" and am still amazed by how people who haven't read easily available information will rebuke it just because of the source.
Answers in Genesis simply is NOT the negative things people have said about them on this thread. They do have their position but in stating their position they post reams of information that the other side propounds.
They have links to the books we've noted. They have audio concerning these topics where you can hear for yourself what they say. Unlike TWI, and most religious organizations they don't only say here is what we believe, the other guys are SEED, possessed et al.
If you want a rebuttal to your question you can find it there. Their basic format is that they have archives of articles by a number of sources. Each article has many many footnotes.
Look there, decide for yourself about the info.
I really don't care. This discussion, to me, isn't about what I know. I don't care who has answers. I really don't care who's right.
A short answer, IMHO, its not about billions of years. If we really are just a random spec. There IS life on other planets, billions of years ago. If we can se them, They can see us.
If we're so damn curious, why aren't they?
Don't tell me they flew light years across the galaxy to do graffitti in a corn field in Nebraska.
A short answer, IMHO, its not about billions of years. If we really are just a random spec. There IS life on other planets, billions of years ago. If we can se them, They can see us.
If we're so damn curious, why aren't they?
Don't tell me they flew light years across the galaxy to do graffitti in a corn field in Nebraska.
A number of different possibilities spring to mind. Mind you, I have no proof;)-->, but I think these just might be why Mr. Spock hasn't been sighted yet.
They might be just as 'damn curious' as we are. Its just that they:
1) Haven't found our civilization yet, but are going on observations, speculations, and probabilities, like we are.
2) They have indeed located our civilization, but they lack the faster-than-light technology needed to get here w/o taking hundreds and thousands and more years to get here in sleeper ships.
3) They've noticed us, they have the warp speed ships, but due to the *immense* stupidity and wars plaguing this blue globe, they basically said, "I think not".
4) (For all you Matrix junkies out there) They noticed us, have the ships, and the interest, and have either taken over our planet w/o our knowing about it, and/or are surrounding and observing our little planet like scientists around a lab rat in a maze.
Now why do I have a sudden craving to scurry and find a peice of cheese? :D-->
It is well known that the stars, galaxies and so forth are 'moving away', ie., moving apart. Question is, is the focus, the center from whence things are moving away from indeed the earth? Or some other point?
I ask this because also keep in mind that our own sun is also 'moving away' as it were, ... with the earth and its sister planets. Thus disqualifying Earth as 'the center of the universe', as it were, a point that keeps valid the biblical creationist account of the 'expanse' moving away since the days of creation. In other words, geometrically speaking, it is the creationist tale that doesn't compute.
So even if Einstien did 'fudge', that still has no effect on 1) the rest of the scientific community (see my earlier example of the Nebraska Man), and 2) the theory of evolution in general.
Try again.
Garth
You seem to be missing the point.
1) Whether or not Einstein's witholding of his observations hurt the rest of the scientific community is conjecture. The point is, Einstein fudged because of the prevalent attitude already entrenched in the scientific community. If someone at the top of the field was so swayed by that pressure of that mindset, how many younger scientists might have done the same thing for the same reason? Of course that is conjecture too and unknowable. But if you are a young researcher and you uniformly hear comments from the giants in your field that expess disgust for any theory that supports a Christian worldview, how likely are you going to be to put forth such a theory?
Group-think exists not only in Churches, but in Academia as well, and it is not any more beneficial for Academia as it is for Churches.
2) I wasn't talking specifically about the theory of evolution, but about the broader attitudes of scientist about theories that appear to support Biblical doctrines.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
39
27
33
Popular Days
Apr 11
31
Apr 8
24
Apr 9
19
Apr 13
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 22 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 39 posts
LG 27 posts
HCW 33 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2005
31 posts
Apr 8 2005
24 posts
Apr 9 2005
19 posts
Apr 13 2005
18 posts
lindyhopper
Actually the thought is that everything is moving away from each other, with some "local exceptions (colliding galaxies, black holes, other large gavitational forces for eg.). In other words, no matter what cosmological vantage point one is in, it would seem as though everything was moving away from you. We do have a galaxy heading our way.
JerryB,
While science is not one person, the field is made up of people. Unfortunately, we still are not perfect. There are a lot of things that would be much better if we were, regardless of the topic. that doesn't mean that the entire human race is going in the wrong direction.
I will look for a table of Hubble's law over the years to make a point that I can't make without it.
My point was that scientists should not be anti-christian, but stay out of religon all together. It should start with observation, not a several thousand year old phylosophy. If you start making science Christian friendly, then you need to make it Budist friendly and Muslim friendly etc.. Your quote showed what the author said was an anti-Creation reaction by a scientist to the Big Bang theory. He also pointed out how it was long thought that the universe was infinite in time and space (which BTW, is a view that is coming back). Couldn't it also be that the reaction was because it was a long held view and people, scientist or not, tend to not automatically accept drastic change very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
BTW,
Here is an interesting read regarding Behe, and it doesn't concer his lame irreducable "Mouse Trap" example.
from a lecture at University of New Mexico...
and a link to a website concerning the successful experiment discussed above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I have read Behe. I was first introduced to him during an "origins" class I took a few years ago. To stay well rounded and well informed another good book other than "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller is "Tower of Babel, Evidence Against the New Creationism". Both have serious biochemical problems with Behe's "irreducibly complex" claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Yeah JerryB, I've been known for that type of thing or thinking.
:o--> Throwing in something that seems to be outside the subject at hand. I think it was def 59 that tagged it "streams of consciousness". My buds at work call it "Steve's World" 
:D--> and then they strike the pose a rocker on stage and sing "Does anybody remember laughter?". My Blushing Bride tells me, "Steven you're saying things only you understand. Can you be a little more specific?"
So,I threw in "felix culpa" ~~~ the idea that the Fall of man was fortunate because it brought us good (in some views, knowledge; in others, redemption through Christ), so that our end was better than our beginning
In Christian theology the fall is the notion that the original sin of Adam and Eves disobedience of God in the Garden of Eden brought about various changes in the perfectly created world, including illness, strife and death. It is a widely interpreted concept with many implications for other elements of theology.
Although the "Fall" is not mentioned by name in the Old Testament, the doctrine is taught in Genesis 3, and foundational to Paul's teaching of the Gospel in Romans 5:12–19 and 1 Corinthians 21–22.
Felix Culpa (the fortunate fall)One interpretation of the doctrine of the fall is that it is necessary in order human's might benefit from God's grace. It includes the notion that, had mankind not been given the capacity for evil, our choice through free will to either serve God or not would not have been as meaningful.
There is, however, a second interpretation of 'felix culpa.' If Eve had not given the fruit to Adam to eat, none of us would be here to enjoy this wonderful world.
~~~ (Fall (religion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
Or if one wishes a kewl view of this subject ~~~Langland, Milton, and the felix culpa.
Soohhh, I thought "felix culpa" was a nice throw in re the topic, "The Way's views on life/death before Adam".
Now on a "side bar", and since the weekend has, well ended, I'll have a Bud Light and ask if any one is familiar (why is "liar' in familiar?) with what was discovered as a static noise that is evident through all the universe and it was not pigeons.
Dig it JB
&
Peace bacatcha
Steven
there is more to this universe than seems to be. all i can do is see what is evident to me and also to others. but there are so many others viewing. the line is so long we die before we know what we attempt to understand.
author unknown
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
TheSongRemainsTheSame
You are truly a person who thinks for himself.
Congrats man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Song,
You or I have gotten to the place where I understand you, think I understand you, or think that I think I understand you more than half the time — which possibly should be causing me some concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
You overestimate me HCW~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Cynic, I don't know what to think about that hickie on your neck. What's the big word for hickie? epistolary? I dunno either~~~ and causes me some concern that I should read the Websters again.
& BTW have you ever been involved in TWI Cynic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Cynic,
What, Which "concern" ?
Is there a level of intelligents we can talk upon???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Basically true from what I've read... except cosmology says that astromomers, all of 'em, Christian or secular observe that no matter what direction one looks in "everything" is moving away from US.
"Astronomers have confirmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are ‘quantized’, tending to fall into distinct groups. According to Hubble’s law, redshifts are proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us. Then it would be the distances themselves that fall into groups. That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells concentric around our home galaxy, the Milky Way.
The Table diagram of Hubble's law shows three rainbow lines, top to bottom as being grouped far, medium and near in terms of distance. Left to right; Blue (violet) on the left going through the color spectrum to red on the right.
The colors represents "shifts." Blue being smaller and red larger, hence the further something is away; the larger the shift. It also includes black "Hydrogen lines" that form an angular pattern as the cross the colored bands.
By 1924 most astromoners has decided that the "white nebulae" were outside our galaxy. Hubble calculated distances with a new, more accurate technique, confirming that more distant nebulae have larger redshifts.
Hubbles distance calculations, published in 1929, revolutionized previous ideas of the universe. The 'white nebulae' as it turns out are galaxies like our own Milky Way. They say each is a 12 million light years away from its nearest neightbors.
The Hubble Speace Telescope can photograph galaxies as far as 15 billion light years away. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies within that distance.
They (scientists) use radio wavelength shifts in addition to the former usage of only light. Using the Hubble telescope recent discoveries conclude that redshifts are 'quantized" or grouped into groupings of distances, which means that galaxies are located in concentric shells © around us.
According to Hubble’s law, the cosmological part of the redshift z of each galaxy corresponds to a particular distance which is a radius r. It "transforms redshift groups to distance groups." You can solve for the distance with a (supplied by me and simplified) formula:
"r equals c over H"
H corresponds to two redshift intervals 1.6 and 1.3 million light years.
Or. The radius (distance) of a galaxy from the center of the universe is calculated by the relationship of its redshift intervals according to the Hubble's law distances that sets it near its neighboring galaxies.
Our galaxy is not located in the center of the pattern it is NEAR the center. There is a complex series of formulae starting with:
"r to the t power = the square root of: r squared, plus a squared, minus 2a,r times the cosign theta"
A is the distance the Milky way is from the calculated mathematical center of the universe. Continuing to solve for a it has been found that our home galaxy, using the smallest observed interval would put us within about 100,000 light years, which is the diameter of our galaxy.
The idea, s, we live in a galactocentric cosmos —a universe that has a unique geometric center very near our own home galaxy, the Milky Way.
In other words; recent, within the last two decades, scientific evidence based on the Hubble law and aided by discoveries made possible by the Hubble telescope concludes two things:
1. The universe has a center.
2. Our galaxy is at the center of the universe.
There's some science. People have done this by "simply" looking at the universe and doing some calculations.
You have your redshifts (expansions) and doppler shifts (coming nearer) that occurr simultaneously, indicating a sort of undulation in the universe as it expands.
Very little in science is accepted by "everyone" so I'm not saying this is the be it all end all thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
~~~The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena . . . Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light [an image of earth taken by Voyager I]. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.~~~
I grabbed that one above somewhere from google cyber space.
If our galaxy is close to the center of the universe
Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'y?-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn —more at WORTH
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks… to choose from —G. B. Clairmont>
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
and all the above definition of infinite and finate, then exactly where is the center of the universe?
If our galaxy is near the center of the universe, are not all other galaxy's? Is our galaxy more near to the center than others? Then all galaxy's have then been near the center of the universe.
Makes ya wonder those that went before us.
eh???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
It figures all that uncited quoting would come from AiG.
Everywhere, from its perspective, is the center of the universe.
Click here for a simple explanation and illustration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Makes ya wonder those that went before us.
~~~
So, then, it ALL did not happen at once in a moment all was created and here WE are.
~~~
But in a moment (atomos) in the twinkling of an eye we shall all be changed ~~~ or sum thin(g)k like that
~~~
So, HOPE is or seems to be a choice of some sort of stock this terra firma we live upon. AND no one can deny we live upon this earth that some have song we are only passing through~~~
So what is our, those who are presently here, the conclusion of the matter? Red lights green lights yellow lights blue lights and all the spectrum of light that we can conceive to be an answer. S h i t man Hubble telescope? Can ya imagine to have a telescope shot into the space above this earth because ya want to know something and find billions of galaxy's beyound us~~~
excuse me while I change a fuse, i mean light bulb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
LG,
kewl
just a thot~~~
Hubble only had a shot, a very small shot from his telescope of the galaxy's beyond us
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I call upon Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Main Entry: conch
Pronunciation: 'k?g]k, 'k?h, 'ko[ng]k
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural conchs /'k?g]ks, 'ko[ng]ks/ or conches /'k?ch&z/
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin concha mussel, mussel shell, from Greek konchE; akin to Sanskrit s´ankha conch shell
Date: 15th century
1 : any of various large spiral-shelled marine gastropod mollusks (as of the genus Strombus); also : its shell used especially for cameos
2 : often capitalized : a native or resident of the Florida Keys
3 : CONCHA 2
[conch illustration]
Have ya ever wondered why a cross cut of a conch shell resembles a spiral galaxy?
just a thot~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Oh yeah? Its from a book called 'Pale Blue Dot: A vision of the Human Future in Space' by Carl Sagan.
Page 9. Published by Ballantine Books in 1977
Yeah it figures. Even that quote Song posted is on AiG.In fact everything, every single piece of science, every scriture, every authorevery concept that has been mentioned, quoted spit on or even casually mentioned on this thread is on AiG.
Hmmm.....
All of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
.... and your successful rebuttal is .....?
Oh, by the way, about all those [Carl Sagan mode] billions and billions [/Carl Sagan mode] of light years, ... the fact that they are indeed billions, .....
... now, I'm no mathematical genius (and neither was Einstein, by the way), but I find it rather difficult to cram, even with my handy-dandy Ronco Super Family Sized Cramer (order now for $6.95, and we'll throw in a dicer autographed by Dr. Hovind himself absolutely *free*), 15 billion years into 6,000 years. ... Sideways, even.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
The "success" of a rebuttal has nothing to to with the quality of the rebuttal.
I originally posted the link to the Answers in Genesis website because they have an impressive array of information and have engaged in "all" of the arguments on the subject.
I was "amazed" and am still amazed by how people who haven't read easily available information will rebuke it just because of the source.
Answers in Genesis simply is NOT the negative things people have said about them on this thread. They do have their position but in stating their position they post reams of information that the other side propounds.
They have links to the books we've noted. They have audio concerning these topics where you can hear for yourself what they say. Unlike TWI, and most religious organizations they don't only say here is what we believe, the other guys are SEED, possessed et al.
If you want a rebuttal to your question you can find it there. Their basic format is that they have archives of articles by a number of sources. Each article has many many footnotes.
Look there, decide for yourself about the info.
I really don't care. This discussion, to me, isn't about what I know. I don't care who has answers. I really don't care who's right.
A short answer, IMHO, its not about billions of years. If we really are just a random spec. There IS life on other planets, billions of years ago. If we can se them, They can see us.
If we're so damn curious, why aren't they?
Don't tell me they flew light years across the galaxy to do graffitti in a corn field in Nebraska.
That's plain crazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
(Just don't ask me to believe that it was some demon playing around in that corn field.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
A number of different possibilities spring to mind. Mind you, I have no proof
;)-->, but I think these just might be why Mr. Spock hasn't been sighted yet.
They might be just as 'damn curious' as we are. Its just that they:
1) Haven't found our civilization yet, but are going on observations, speculations, and probabilities, like we are.
2) They have indeed located our civilization, but they lack the faster-than-light technology needed to get here w/o taking hundreds and thousands and more years to get here in sleeper ships.
3) They've noticed us, they have the warp speed ships, but due to the *immense* stupidity and wars plaguing this blue globe, they basically said, "I think not".
4) (For all you Matrix junkies out there) They noticed us, have the ships, and the interest, and have either taken over our planet w/o our knowing about it, and/or are surrounding and observing our little planet like scientists around a lab rat in a maze.
Now why do I have a sudden craving to scurry and find a peice of cheese?
:D-->
Ahhhh, ... the Power of Cheese!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Hey, it is boring in husker land, got to do something till they reinvent the football program.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Don't tell me they flew light years across the galaxy to do graffitti in a corn field in Nebraska"
You know, I have seen more stupid and more crazy things happen..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Garth
You seem to be missing the point.
1) Whether or not Einstein's witholding of his observations hurt the rest of the scientific community is conjecture. The point is, Einstein fudged because of the prevalent attitude already entrenched in the scientific community. If someone at the top of the field was so swayed by that pressure of that mindset, how many younger scientists might have done the same thing for the same reason? Of course that is conjecture too and unknowable. But if you are a young researcher and you uniformly hear comments from the giants in your field that expess disgust for any theory that supports a Christian worldview, how likely are you going to be to put forth such a theory?
Group-think exists not only in Churches, but in Academia as well, and it is not any more beneficial for Academia as it is for Churches.
2) I wasn't talking specifically about the theory of evolution, but about the broader attitudes of scientist about theories that appear to support Biblical doctrines.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.