Creationists

[newpolitics]

Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?

Are you this stupid all the time?

You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.

Are you really this ignorant to science and math?

Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.

What does relativity have to with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.

 

[UltimateReality]

here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings.

baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.

come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.

And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.

you can start by reading the summa theologica by thomas aquinas. His arguments for the existence of god are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and i would not expect you to recognize.

you might start by picking up some classes at a community college.

You are a proven LIAR. Nothing else you say here is credible. Now run along.

 

[Hollie]

I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, miles per hour or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.

Good gawd these people are scary.

Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations.

All the math you need is in the bible. The earth is 6,000 years old. That's all the math a fundie needs to know.

 

[UltimateReality]

You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.

Are you really this ignorant to science and math?

Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.

What does relativity have to with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.

We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Amos Bronson Alcott

 

[newpolitics]

The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.

Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.

You mean like you?

Are you implying that you are the standard of rationality? C'mon. We both know that ain't true.


Lonestar is misrepresenting my arguments left and right, something I know you dont appreciate.


By the way, would you please tell him that young earth creationism is a real thing? Maybe he will listen to you. He is so blinded by hatred for atheists than he can't represent anything I write with any kind of accuracy.

 

[HUGGY]

I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, miles per hour or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.

Good gawd these people are scary.

Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

 

[UltimateReality]

Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations...

Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.

 

[UltimateReality]

Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

Wow, for someone bashing someone else's reading comprehension you aren't keeping up very well. I won't waste my time to explain this to you but you might want to go back and re-read the last few pages before you look even more foolish.

 

[UltimateReality]

Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.

 

[HUGGY]

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

Wow, for someone bashing someone else's reading comprehension you aren't keeping up very well. I won't waste my time to explain this to you but you might want to go back and re-read the last few pages before you look even more foolish.

Ya right. I don't care that much. The s were aimed at my math. I stand by it. If you have something previously posted that contradicts my math feel free to link. I can always use a good chuckle.

 

[HUGGY]

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.

If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time. One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.

PS... It also takes a star a long time to form so you can observe it...add that to the time table.

Gravitational Collapse

How long does it take for a cloud to condense to form a star? We assume that the least time for this to happen is when the cloud condenses entirely under the influence of gravity and neglect any internal pressure resisting the collpase. This is called the free-fall collapse time, and can be shown to depend only on the cloud's initial density and not its mass.

tff = 2.11 x 10-3 / D1/2years where D is the average density of the cloud

You can add this to your observable distance and the time it took the dust to get there.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Hollie]

Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?

There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations...

Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.

On the contrary, your lack of relevant education in the physical sciences has been the cause of your confusion regarding the science you have been introduced to in this thread.

 

[UltimateReality]

There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations...

Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.

On the contrary, your lack of relevant education in the physical sciences has been the cause of your confusion regarding the science you have been introduced to in this thread.

Who can believe anything you post now that you are a proven LIAR? You have lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.

 

[UltimateReality]

No way!!

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.

Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old.....

You are kinda dense Texas. They were 13 billion years old when we first viewed them. They or their remains are twice that old now.

You stated the stars remains were 26 billion years old and Hollie thanked you. You did this as you were calling another poster dense. That is the math I am referring to.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Which statement, that young-earth creationists don't exist???

This is a demonstration of willful ignorance in the making.

How can you stand by your statement when I just demonstrated it to be false? Young-Earth Creationists are real, and exist, not only in general, but on this very thread. Ask Youwerecreated.

It's almost as if you make assertions, and then release all association you have to that assertion, but before you do, you declare victory, so that no matter how much your claim is disproven, you still somehow claim victory. This is insanity.

The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.

Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.

I digress, it's your side that keeps bringing up the 6,000 year old earth argument.

 

[Hollie]

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.

If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time. One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.

I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.

 

[UltimateReality]

You don't like my math? You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed? I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.

Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.

If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time. One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.

In particle physics, there are particles that "communicate" faster than the speed of light.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.

If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time. One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.

I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.

You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?

 

[Hollie]

The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.

Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.

I digress, it's your side that keeps bringing up the 6,000 year old earth argument.

Actually, no. That would be one of the fundies who is a YEC'ist.

 

[Hollie]

If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time. One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.

I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.

You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?

That itself would be a lie. Link us to a proven lie, you creepy stalker.