Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[Greg Jennings]

You are confusing a few things, and making a bit of a strawman.
What I had mentioned is "fossils of apes that evolutionists tried to make more human like" with descriptions trying to sell their belief system.
Notice, I did not say 'scientists'..I said 'evolutionists'. The word scientists would be incorrect in my statement because it is only some scientists who do that.

Also... without giving you citations, you already KNOW of numerous examples where evolutionists tried to make human fossils more apelike.....or ape fossils appear more human like.
Example... Neandertals were portrayed as stooped over hairy beasts. Evolutionists claimed these 'beasts' were inarticulate. ..no culture...didn't bury dead with ceremony...couldn't breed with humans....unintelligent...etc.
Science has proven all of those evolutionary claims to be false. Science has proven the humanity of Neandertals and is one more evidence for the truth of God's Word. We are all one blood...one race...all descendants of the original created humans, Adam and Eve.

6, until you give some semblance of a corroborating source here, everything is just your opinion. If you don't have any examples of "evolutionists'" mistakes that you can link to, then what do you think that says? It certainly doesn't fit your narrative that "evolutionists" are all frauds who lie because they worship Charles Darwin, does it?

 

[Right Divider]

Look up the word "agnostic" for me. Then you'll feel really stupid.

An agnostic is just an atheist with no confidence. You may call yourself an agnostic, but everything you say are the same things that atheists say.

You are CLEARLY a materialist that rejects the supernatural, therefore you are an atheist.

I don't really care where you get your definitions. You have a religious belief based on your rejection of a Creator.

From the great and mighty wikipedia:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle.

BTW, I was more specifically referring to gravitational time dilation. Which would explain some of your "scientific" observations regarding the age of the universe by looking out into it.

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

 

[Greg Jennings]

An agnostic is just an atheist with no confidence. You may call yourself an agnostic, but everything you say are the same things that atheists say.

You are CLEARLY a materialist that rejects the supernatural, therefore you are an atheist.

I don't really care where you get your definitions. You have a religious belief based on your rejection of a Creator.

You're a hoot. And you clearly still don't know what agnostic means.
:rotfl:

From the great and mighty wikipedia:
BTW, I was more specifically referring to gravitational time dilation. Which would explain some of your "scientific" observations regarding the age of the universe by looking out into it.

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

And science doesn't fall under that definition. It isn't a belief. It's based on evidence It's that simple. Or would you like to show me the awesome evidence proving that Jesus rose from the dead? Unless you can, then all you got is a belief. That's religion, not science.

I'm very familiar with time dilation. It only affects relative time. Explain to me how that fits in with you 6000 year old universe?

 

[Right Divider]

You're a hoot. And you clearly still don't know what agnostic means.
:rotfl:

I can see what you want it to mean.

You say that you're not sure where things came from but you're absolutely certain that it's NOT God. Good one.

And science doesn't fall under that definition. It isn't a belief. It's based on evidence It's that simple. Or would you like to show me the awesome evidence proving that Jesus rose from the dead? Unless you can, then all you got is a belief. That's religion, not science.

Since you decided to mash some things together there, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. But "science" can only tell us some things and NOT everything.

Unless you want to be a "science is god" guy. That seems to fit you pretty well.

I'm very familiar with time dilation. It only affects relative time. Explain to me how that fits in with you 6000 year old universe?

Sure it does. Once again, since you don't listen, I've clearly said that I don't know or care how old the universe is. That does not change the fact that it did not create itself.

You said that the speed of light is CONSTANT and yet SPEED is distance/TIME. So TIME dilation says that you don't know that you're talking about.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I can see what you want it to mean.

You say that you're not sure where things came from but you're absolutely certain that it's NOT God. Good one.

Please quote me where I said that God didn't create. I'm begging you

Since you decided to mash some things together there, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. But "science" can only tell us some things and NOT everything.

Unless you want to be a "science is god" guy. That seems to fit you pretty well.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Maybe you'll understand what agnostic means now

Sure it does. Once again, since you don't listen, I've clearly said that I don't know or care how old the universe is. That does not change the fact that it did not create itself.

It seems that in your rage you've created an enemy that doesn't exist. I absolutely never said that the universe absolutely created itself, just that it is very old.

You said that the speed of light is CONSTANT and yet SPEED is distance/TIME. So TIME dilation says that you don't know that you're talking about.

Wow. Just wow. The speed of light (c) is 299,792,458 m/s. That's very important that it's constant in a vacuum. Ever heard of E=mc^2? Take a guess at what the c in there is? The constant speed of light! Eureka!

If you're going to dabble in a certain subject, it helps to know something about it. Or at least do some brief research beforehand.

 

[6days]

It certainly doesn't fit your narrative that "evolutionists" are all frauds who lie because they worship Charles Darwin, does it?

Another Jennings strawman.
I said nothing remotely like that...
However, this sort of pertains to what you said.

Seems that at least some evolutionists worship at the feet of Darwin.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Another Jennings strawman.
I said nothing remotely like that...
However, this sort of pertains to what you said.

Seems that at least some evolutionists worship at the feet of Darwin.

It's pretty clear you just made up those "evolutionist frauds" of yours now. I'm disappointed. I thought you actually had something to examine

 

[Right Divider]

Wow. Just wow. The speed of light (c) is 299,792,458 m/s. That's very important that it's constant in a vacuum. Ever heard of E=mc^2? Take a guess at what the c in there is? The constant speed of light! Eureka!

And YET gravitational time dilation maintains that TIME is not constant. Therefore the denominator varies making the whole formula change. The length of a second is different depending on the gravitational forces in play.

What the heck does E=mc^2 have to do with the time dilation affecting the speed of light? If m or c varies then so does E. Where is the problem?

 

[Greg Jennings]

And YET gravitational time dilation maintains that TIME is not constant. Therefore the denominator varies making the whole formula change. The length of a second is different depending on the gravitational forces in play.

Relative time is not constant. And you don't seem to get it: the speed of light in a vacuum (space) is unchanging. There is no formula for the speed of light because it is a constant.

What the heck does E=mc^2 have to do with the time dilation affecting the speed of light? If m or c varies then so does E. Where is the problem?

It has to do with it because c is the constant in the equation? A constant cannot be changed; it is a fixed value.

Time dilation is what happens to an object as it approaches the speed of light. The closer to that value, the greater that dilation. It can also occur due to gravity, as you said. If you really want the answer then this site states it more eloquently and clearly than I can.


"speed of light" in a vacuum, such as in space. When it does so it travels at 300,000 km per second (186,300 miles per second). At that speed it can travel around the world seven times every second. This is undoubtedly very fast indeed, but in terms of the size of the universe it is still, perhaps surprisingly, very slow. For example, it still takes light around 1.5 seconds to reach us from the moon, 8.5 minutes to reach us from the Sun, 4.25 years to reach us from the nearest star (apart from the Sun), and about 14 to 15 billion years to reach us from the furthest objects yet seen.

A million or a billion years is a very long time, of course, but perhaps we're forgetting something. We are measuring time with our own, Earth-bound clocks! Relative to most objects in space our clocks can be considered to be very near stationary. So how does a photon travelling at the speed of light experience time?

If you look into a clear night sky at the right time of year (winter in the northern hemisphere) you will see a pattern of stars that looks like this, called the constellation of Andromeda:



The object shown as M31 is called, for obvious reasons, the Andromeda galaxy, and is rather like our Milky Way. On a clear night you can see it as a faint chalk-like smudge in the sky, and for most people it's the furthest object it's possible to see with the naked eye. Pictures taken with powerful telescopes show it to be composed of millions and millions of stars, many of which are just like our own Sun. The Andromeda galaxy is so far away that it takes the light from it, as measured with our Earth-bound clocks, over two million years to reach us. However, a photon emitted from a star in Andromeda and heading out towards the Earth travels in a vacuum and, because it's a photon, travels at the speed of light. Because the photon is moving at the speed of light it has a 100% time dilation factor. To the photon time does not exist until it strikes the upper atmosphere of our planet and even then is only slowed down by a tiny fraction. According to a photon in free space, time, or for that matter distance, has no meaning whatsoever, and it gets from wherever it is to wherever it is going instantly! Personally, I'm happy to admit that I find that mindboggling..."

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.VlETOl9OKnM

 

[Right Divider]

Relative time is not constant. And you don't seem to get it: the speed of light in a vacuum (space) is unchanging. There is no formula for the speed of light because it is a constant.

If the vacuum is in a strong gravitational field, no. A vacuum is simply a space without atmosphere, it is NOT void regarding gravitational influences.

RELATIVE to WHAT?

It has to do with it because c is the constant in the equation? A constant cannot be changed; it is a fixed value.

Only because you think so, I guess you're the decider.

Time dilation is what happens to an object as it approaches the speed of light. The closer to that value, the greater that dilation. It can also occur due to gravity, as you said. If you really want the answer then this site states it more eloquently and clearly than I can.

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

Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity[1] and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

If, for example, you were at the center of a large mass; like maybe the center of the universe.... then time would move more slowly.

 

[Greg Jennings]

P

RELATIVE to WHAT?

Relative to something traveling at a lesser velocity. Never heard of general and special relativity I take it?

Only because you think so, I guess you're the decider.



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

If, for example, you were at the center of a large mass; like maybe the center of the universe.... then time would move more slowly.

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. I don't decide anything. Scientists, specifically physicists and astronomers, are your "deciders." I'm sure you're more knowledgable, right?
This was in my last post that you obviously didn't read:

"However, a photon emitted from a star in Andromeda and heading out towards the Earth travels in a vacuum and, because it's a photon, travels at the speed of light. Because the photon is moving at the speed of light it has a 100% time dilation factor. To the photon time does not exist until it strikes the upper atmosphere of our planet and even then is only slowed down by a tiny fraction. According to a photon in free space, time, or for that matter distance, has no meaning whatsoever, and it gets from wherever it is to wherever it is going instantly!"

In the event of a singularity's gravity, as you mention, light cannot escape that is true. But we know that there was a massive expansion from that singularity and that this singularity only existed for a millionth of a second or so. Once it expanded instantly, then the laws of physics as we know them came to be. Laws that govern the speed of light. So in summation, there was no gravitational effect on light at the beginning because light didn't exist until after the singularity had already expanded.

If you still fail to grasp this, then mercy on your soul

 

[Interplanner]

If that Andromeda photon can actually do that instantly, then 6 days is not a problem if all we are talking about is mechanical, physical processes. But Genesis is talking about an infinite Creator who can merely speak and things take shape.

Other accounts have found this position necessary in their cosmology. The Suquamish tribe near Seattle refers to the Creator as the form-changer which is accomplished merely by speaking. At first he gave this power to humans, plants and animals, but they deceived each other with it. So he took it back. The point being that it is their understanding of how creation happened and 2nd, that such a power should not be in the hands of finite creatures.

 

[Truster]

I'm not stumped.

 

[Right Divider]

In the event of a singularity's gravity, as you mention, light cannot escape that is true. But we know that there was a massive expansion from that singularity and that this singularity only existed for a millionth of a second or so. Once it expanded instantly, then the laws of physics as we know them came to be. Laws that govern the speed of light. So in summation, there was no gravitational effect on light at the beginning because light didn't exist until after the singularity had already expanded.

If you still fail to grasp this, then mercy on your soul

So these are things that we know? That's some fascinating "science".

My soul is in great shape, it's yours that you should be worried about.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So these are things that we know? That's some fascinating "science".

My soul is in great shape, it's yours that you should be worried about.

I'll take this as an admission of defeat in the only way that your pride can manage it

 

[Right Divider]

I'll take this as an admission of defeat in the only way that your pride can manage it

My point is that you don't actually know what science is.

Your pride makes you believe that you KNOW things that cannot be proven and which many 'scientists' still hotly debate.

 

[Greg Jennings]

My point is that you don't actually know what science is.

Oh yes, you've certainly proven that with your sharp wit here :rotfl:

You make me smile

 

[Right Divider]

Oh yes, you've certainly proven that with your sharp wit here :rotfl:

You make me smile

YOUR English is bad. YOU'RE going to need to improve.

YOU don't know what science is.

You claim to KNOW things that YOU cannot possibly KNOW.

 

[Greg Jennings]

YOUR English is bad. YOU'RE going to need to improve.

YOU don't know what science is.

You claim to KNOW things that YOU cannot possibly KNOW.

Are you serious? Please point out my bad English. I'm waiting eagerly. I'll lay it out for you to make it easier:
"Oh yes, you've (or 'you have') certainly proven that with your (possessive pronoun) sharp wit here."

So where's that English error again, genius?


As for the other two comments: LOL

 

[Right Divider]

Are you serious? Please point out my bad English. I'm waiting eagerly. I'll lay it out for you to make it easier:
"Oh yes, you've (or 'you have') certainly proven that with your (possessive pronoun) sharp wit here."

So where's that English error again, genius?

Oops, my bad... I misread this and I apologize for that.

As for the other two comments: LOL

Once again, I stand by this statement. You claim to KNOW things that you cannot possibly KNOW.

Unless you have an agnostic version of KNOW.

The origin of the universe is NOT KNOWN based on OBSERVATION. This is part of your chosen WORLD-VIEW.

Your materialist view makes you believe that you can discover everything that there is to know but looking at the material.

You say that your view is agnostic, but you certainly sound like an atheist. You seem to consistently say that "God did it" is not an option. That is atheistic.