[A thread that was a reaction to the discovery of an echo of the Big Bang has turned into a discussion on whether the speed of light is decreasing. Another fundie has criticized a creationist astronomer named Barr Setterfield.]
All of science believed that the s. of l. was decaying up until about 1950, many peer-reviewed papers were written. When they came to the understanding that their Evolution Theory would not work, they changed the s. of l. to a constant knowing that most could not do the math. Setterfield took on the task and was ridiculed for it for years, only in the last few years has his work been recognized as right. They still refuse to say their sorry for the ridiculing of his work though, because of their beloved Evolution Theory, but they know he's right
...
Light was not created from the distant stars to the earth, the light was created from the earth, our Lord and Creator was standing on the earth when He created the light and it went out from here. Science always gets it wrong because of that.
...
No scientist that believes in Darin's nonsense and his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
29 comments
Light was not created from the distant stars to the earth, the light was created from the earth, our Lord and Creator was standing on the earth when He created the light and it went out from here.
How is that even supposed to work? Is this that "eye-beam" thing again?
Light was not created from the distant stars to the earth, the light was created from the earth, our Lord and Creator was standing on the earth when He created the light and it went out from here.
Light came from the Earth? Since when did Earth become a star?
Light was not created from the distant stars to the earth, the light was created from the earth, our Lord and Creator was standing on the earth when He created the light and it went out from here.
What??? So light goes from the earth to the stars and back again? So that would make the universe twice as old as scientists think it is, since all that light is now on the return trip. You creationists don't think your arguments through very well, do you?
The "star light is actually from the Earth" thing... I have seen the apex of insanity, stupidity, and bat shit ignorance. The abyss stares into me... and laughs. It tales me with the destruction of mankind by the hands of those who blindly follow religion as a science and describe actual science as deceitful, corrupt, and evil. The warping powers of this person's insanity are overtaking me, leaving me an empty husk of my former self.
"only in the last few years has his work been recognized as right."
There it is, the straight out false assertion. Who recognized him as right now? Oh, the entire scientific community, they won't admit it though.
Always these lame attempts to shore up the flock with "Creation science has rose up to be the most prominant voice in Physics and Biology, fresh outta Oral Roberts world reknowned labs at the forefront of science, labcoats n all, Bible in hand"
In the end just more evidence you will believe in ANYTHING.
our Lord and Creator was standing on the earth when He created the light
Genesis 1 says that God created light before he created the earth - not much of a Christian, are you?
Hey, how about approaching one of those creationist publishers, they're always looking for complete horse crap to keep their printers oiled up...
Oh, that's right! No one believes a word those BS artists print. Sorry.
> All of science believed that the s. of l. was decaying up until about 1950,
You don't happen to have a copy of those papers, do you?
@ Kuno
Yeppers! Eye-Beams!
Pew pew pew!
"Light was not created from the distant stars to the earth, the light was created from the earth"
In astronomy, the only things that create light - certainly to the extent of what could illuminate a solar system - is a star :
image
...therefore either we're all hotter than Princess Molestia's plot (as we can therefore survive living on the surface of this star called Earth), or you're talking out of yours , as you continue to move those goalposts in denial that there's very few gaps left, as per those behind the Big Bang 'theory' have all but been awarded that Nobel Prize, and Godidn't doit.
That's the problem with 'theories'. They have a rather nasty habit of becoming facts . >:D
@ScrappyB
Well, I guess that those behind the Monoliths were responsible for converting Jupiter into a star (thus our Sol solar system becoming a binary one) for their new 'Eden', Europa, at the end of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" sequel "2010". [/nerd]
You were home schooled, weren't you? Cause even a basic understanding of science can probably tell you that biology and physics are different fields. Darwin papers concern evolution, while the standard theory of relativity concerns the physical universe. It also states nothing to do with its age.
When even the ICR has concluded that Setterfield is talking bollocks, you know that you're not standing on a firm foundation. Indeed, you're not standing on any foundation whatsoever. You are, in fact, standing on an ephemeral miasma of wishful thinking and vanished dreams. You know that the moment you look down, you're going to be doing the Wile E Coyote 'sad look to camera'.
Kuno (Forgot to enter my name)
No scientist that believes in Darin's nonsense
Would that be the Other Dar(r)in ?
@#1650821 & #1650884:
Exactly!
"... just like any creation scientist can not publish any of their findings."
What is obvious to everyone except creationists is that the reason their findings don't get published is NOT because they were written by a creationist, it's because what they have written IS NOT SCIENCE! Get it through your thick heads, we're not persecuting you, your "science" is crap because it invokes the supernatural.
Let's see if I can make it easy for you to understand: Let's say you're conducting a dog show, and judging for the best dog. If I showed up with an elephant, what would you say? You'd say "That's not valid for our competition", right? Now replace the dog show with science, and the elephant with creationist dogma. If you were the owner of the elephant, would you get all bent out of shape saying "They're not letting my elephant into the dog show because my hair is the wrong color? No, that's just ridiculous. But fundies are claiming that their papers are being rejected due to something equally ridiculous; the author's beliefs . Their papers are getting rejected for the same reason that elephants aren't allowed in dog shows; the elephant is not valid because it's an elephant. Creationist "science" is not valid because it's creationism, invoking the supernatural, which is not science. Get it?
"...some of the light still has not reached the farthest stars."
I feel sorry for those stars being in the dark all the time. I bet any beings living on planets round those dark stars wish Bible God would make a sun for them so that they could see which direction up was when they take flight.
The light has yet to reach the furthest stars...?
Even by Crapture Ready's abysmal standards, that is taking stupid to a new level.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
