If God created...

[6days]

Hey... Stuu, Sorry you are banned. I was enjoying our chat. Not sure if you can still read replies, but here goes anyways...

So, what evidence, and what logic demands that all codes need artificial coding?

What I had said was "Codes, where information is sent and received, ALWAYS have a code maker. (traffic signs, braille, language, etc) According to Bill Gates our DNA is the most sophisticated software in existence. "

Light enters our eye 'hitting' rhodopsin, which consists of 2 molecules, the protein opsin which is integrated with vitamin A

Not 'vitamin A'. It's specifically retinal.

If you want to get specific, it is vitamin A aldehyde. Retinal is a form of vitamin A.

the only possible way rhodopsin could become a light switch / chromophore was for the vitamin A molecule to change shape at a precise position, the 11th atom.

11-cis-retinal is not the only molecule that can respond with a shape-change to a single photon.

The article says "yet for some reason photoreceptor cells only function with 11-cis-retinal'(the 11th atom)

archaic bacteria use cis-trans isomerism of 13-cis-retinal as a proton pump system. So it's not only the conversion of the 11-double bond that is a useful shape-change chromophore system.

Bacteria do not have eyes that detect a single photon of light as we do making our light sensing capability, the absolute optimum...period.
BTW... the 13th atom is specifically excluded in the article which says "scientists wondered why 7-cis-, 9-cis- or 13-cis- isomers could not achieve this goal,” Sekharan told PhysOrg.com."

Do you have a citation that demonstrates the surprise expressed by the original researchers, as you appear to be claim? Something that says 'we were surprised' that this least-stable system would be the one used?

Sure...The article says "Sekharan said. “This indeed is very surprising given the fact that, outside the protein environment, 11-cis-retinal is one of the least stable isomers." https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-mystery-eye.html#jCp

Perhaps part of the reason science keeps surprising evolutionists is we see amazing design, and evidence of our designer

But this is clearly an example of natural selection,...

Attributing perfection to natural selection is essentially the fallacy of begging the question. Since vitamin A aldehyde does not naturally exist in 11-cis-retinal how can natural selection, select it?? The OPTIMAL design is clear evidence of our omniscient Creator. "In the beginning..."

 

[6days]

Yep, I know what it says. How is it different than magic?

Magic is believing things such as life can come from non life.... Nothing created everything..... Frogs can evolve into handsome princes (Fairytales)

 

[6days]

.

Your video creates a strawman argument, then attacks it.

If you have real argument (perhaps a quote) you wish to attack, do so. There are a variety of answers, and possible problems both to Biblical creationists and stellar evolutionists. (Stellar evolutionists invoke a number of pseudo scientific explanations such as faster than speed of light expansion, dark energy and more).

 

[User Name]

Your video creates a strawman argument, then attacks it.

What is the "straw man argument" you are referring to?

If you have real argument (perhaps a quote) you wish to attack, do so. There are a variety of answers, and possible problems both to Biblical creationists and stellar evolutionists.

Quite simply, the fact that we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away is evidence that the universe appears to be more than 6,000 years old. It takes light from the sun 8 minutes and 17 seconds to travel to earth for us to see it. When you see sunlight, you are seeing light that radiated from the surface of the sun 8 minutes and 17 seconds previously. This means that you are not seeing the sun as it exists now, but you are seeing it as it existed 8 minutes and 17 seconds in the past. Likewise, when we look out at other stars in the Milky Way or farther out to other galaxies in the universe, we are not seeing the stars as they exist now; we are seeing them as they appeared when the light left their surfaces. The farther away the star is, the more time it took for its light to reach us. So we cannot see stars and galaxies in real time. Rather, we see them as they appeared in the distant past.

The Andromeda Galaxy is visible to the unaided human eye from earth. It is some 2.5 million years away from us. The fact that we can even see it means that its light traveled a great distance over a great period of time for its light to reach us. This is strong evidence for an "appearance of age" for the universe that goes well beyond 6,000 years.

 

[6days]

What is the "straw man argument" you are referring to?

Your video says that creationists believe God created light in transit. Then without actually citing anything, he easily tears down that strawman. If it isn't a strawman, then provide a quote so we can check who said it, and what the context is.

Quite simply, the fact that we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away is evidence that the universe appears to be more than 6,000 years old.

No...If something is 6,000 light years away, that is a measurement of distance.
Wiki says "we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7billion light years away". According to your logic, that means the universe is at least 45.7 billion years?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No...If something is 6,000 light years away, that is a measurement of distance.
Wiki says "we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7billion light years away". According to your logic, that means the universe is at least 45.7 billion years?

45.7 billion years, plus however long it took for those stars to supposedly form... Oh wait, there is no theory of origins for stars that doesn't include stars that already exist.

Sounds like "turtles all the way down" to me...

 

[gcthomas]

No...If something is 6,000 light years away, that is a measurement of distance.
Wiki says "we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7billion light years away". According to your logic, that means the universe is at least 45.7 billion years?

I'm afraid you've got yourself into a muddle here. The 'quite close' comment refers to the material that emitted the background radiation when it was emitted about 42 million light years away, but now looks further due to the metric expansion of the universe. The 6000 ly comment is, however, referring to stars within our own galaxy, which do not experience this expansion as it is gravitationally bound. So 6000 light years does in fact refer to light that was emitted 6000 years ago.

It is a common error to mix up the various measures in cosmology, so you are not alone. But you are certainly wrong. The stars of the galaxy do a very good job of looking more than several thousand years old.

 

[gcthomas]

45.7 billion years,

Nope - the 45.7 light years figure is the cosmological proper distance (the distance the object would have moved to by now since the light was emitted), with the comoving distance being the 13.8 billion light years, which represents the time in years which has passed since the light was emitted. The distance at the time the light was emitted was about 12 million light years, when the universe was around 400 000 years old.

plus however long it took for those stars to supposedly form...

Nope - the radiation from that epoc is from before the stars formed, so you don't need to add on time for that.

Oh wait, there is no theory of origins for stars that doesn't include stars that already exist.

Ohh, but there is. You are quite wrong. See here for lots of theory.

Sounds like "turtles all the way down" to me...

Mistaken again, driven by your preconceptions of how science must be to fit in with your beliefs. But science isn't like what you hope for.

 

[Jonahdog]

Then why do you ignore it?

because it does not fit with the real world. Same reason I don't pray to Zeus, or go out to look for leprechauns

 

[Stripe]

But the "how" is not explained. And, I suspect, given your theological need, unexplainable

Yes, it is.

Darwinists work on a zero-concession policy, even at the expense of the consistency of their own argument. Dog, for example, mocks the Biblical account of God using dust, but then declares that the how is not presented.

What was his specific incorrect characterization of the Bible?

Darwinists hate reading.

Yep, I know what it says. How is it different than magic?

Let me guarantee you, if a Darwinist had created life from clay, you would be marveling at the "science" of it all.

Hey... Stuu, Sorry you are banned. I was enjoying our chat. Not sure if you can still read replies, but here goes anyways...

What I had said was "Codes, where information is sent and received, ALWAYS have a code maker. (traffic signs, braille, language, etc) According to Bill Gates our DNA is the most sophisticated software in existence. "

If you want to get specific, it is vitamin A aldehyde. Retinal is a form of vitamin A.

The article says "yet for some reason photoreceptor cells only function with 11-cis-retinal'(the 11th atom)

Bacteria do not have eyes that detect a single photon of light as we do making our light sensing capability, the absolute optimum...period.
BTW... the 13th atom is specifically excluded in the article which says "scientists wondered why 7-cis-, 9-cis- or 13-cis- isomers could not achieve this goal,” Sekharan told PhysOrg.com."

Sure...The article says "Sekharan said. “This indeed is very surprising given the fact that, outside the protein environment, 11-cis-retinal is one of the least stable isomers." https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-mystery-eye.html#jCp

Attributing perfection to natural selection is essentially the fallacy of begging the question. Since vitamin A aldehyde does not naturally exist in 11-cis-retinal how can natural selection, select it?? The OPTIMAL design is clear evidence of our omniscient Creator. "In the beginning..."

Wait. Stuu-pid is banned?

:darwinsm:

:mock: Stuu.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[6days]

Nope - the 45.7 light years figure is the cosmological proper distance (the distance the object would have moved to by now since the light was emitted), with the comoving distance being the 13.8 billion light years, which represents the time in years which has passed since the light was emitted. The distance at the time the light was emitted was about 12 million light years, when the universe was around 400 000 years old.

So, light years outside our galaxy is a measurement of distance... not time. Then you factor in expansion.
Likewise as a Bible believer... I agree light years is a measurement of distance and not time. I also factor in that the Bible tells us God spread... and is spreading the universe.
Unlike Stellar evolutionists, I don't need create 'rescue device' explanations such as expansion, dark energy, missing anti-matter, dark matter.... Because the chemical composition of the universe is "surprisingly uniform", I don't need try explain that it only appears uniform...or that it isn't uniform. I don't need explain away objects in the distant universe that should not exist according to Big Bang theorists. I don't need try explain away evidence that Titan or Pluto appear young. I don't need try explain away the decaying magnetic field...ETC. I can accept the evidence as being consistent with God's Word, and don't

 

[User Name]

No...If something is 6,000 light years away, that is a measurement of distance.

UDF 2457 is a red dwarf star calculated to be about 59,000 light-years from Earth. This star is in our galaxy. If it takes over 8 minutes for light from our own sun to reach us, how long do you suppose it takes for light from UDF 2457, which is about 59,000 light-years away, to reach us?

 

[6days]

UDF 2457 is a red dwarf star calculated to be about 59,000 light-years from Earth. This star is in our galaxy. If it takes over 8 minutes for light from our own sun to reach us, how long do you suppose it takes for light from UDF 2457, which is about 59,000 light-years away, to reach us?

It depends on several things.
* What is the one way speed of light? We don't know and Einstein called it at 'convention'.
* How long did it take God to spread the stars, and how did He do it? We don't know but the Bible tells us He did.
* Has the speed of light always being the same in the distant past? We don't know and there have been secular astronomers that have speculated the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster than it is now in the past.( I can find a link to the article later if you wish. I am doing this by voice at the moment and not able to do a search

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Ohh, but there is. You are quite wrong. See here for lots of theory.

Yer biggest problem is believing man has flying telescopes out there in space.:kookoo:

Oh wait a Light second, lol, you did say theory dint yuh?:crackup:

 

[gcthomas]

It depends on several things.
* What is the one way speed of light? We don't know and Einstein called it at 'convention'.
* How long did it take God to spread the stars, and how did He do it? We don't know but the Bible tells us He did.
* Has the speed of light always being the same in the distant past? We don't know and there have been secular astronomers that have speculated the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster than it is now in the past.( I can find a link to the article later if you wish. I am doing this by voice at the moment and not able to do a search

The speed of light hadn't changed over time. Spectral line frequencies, for example, are extremely sensitive to the speed of light, and these lines are identical for starts at wildly different distances/times. See here for more discussion: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/constants.html

 

[6days]

The speed of light hadn't changed over time

You may be correct, I don't know.
Your 2006 article agrees with you.

However, in 2016 "João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...s-view-on-speed-of-light-could-soon-be-tested

Or, 'cosmosmagazine' says " Instead, he proposes that in the early universe, light travelled many trillions of times faster than it does today."

Or... for something stranger, a 2012 article in 'Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics aays that the current expansion model may be wrong, and that the speed of sound may once have been faster than speed of light. (Article "General Conditions for Scale-Invariant Perturbations in an Expanding Universe.")







.

 

[gcthomas]

You may be correct, I don't know.
Your 2006 article agrees with you.

However, in 2016 "João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...s-view-on-speed-of-light-could-soon-be-tested

Or, 'cosmosmagazine' says " Instead, he proposes that in the early universe, light travelled many trillions of times faster than it does today."

Or... for something stranger, a 2012 article in 'Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics aays that the current expansion model may be wrong, and that the speed of sound may once have been faster than speed of light. (Article "General Conditions for Scale-Invariant Perturbations in an Expanding Universe.")







.

And all of them produce a billions of years old universe. So why would you latch onto that research? And nine of them claim that the speed of light has changed in the last few billion years.

 

[Stripe]

And all of them produce a billions of years old universe. So why would you latch onto that research? And nine of them claim that the speed of light has changed in the last few billion years.

Darwinists have a difficult time thinking, don't they?

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[6days]

6days: "secular astronomers have speculated the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster than it is now in the past"

gcthomas: "The speed of light hadn't changed over time"

6days: "(quoting secular jouurnal)"(we) propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe"."

gcthomas: "So why would you latch onto that research?"

Answer

Because, it supported what I said.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

6days: "secular astronomers have speculated the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster than it is now in the past"

gcthomas: "The speed of light hadn't changed over time"

6days: "(quoting secular jouurnal)"(we) propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe"."

gcthomas: "So why would you latch onto that research?"

Answer

Because, it supported what I said.

Yep. According to Stu, yer just lying about "SECULAR" scientists saying such a thing.

gc simply puts his fingers in his ears.