God for london mayor...

Off topic chat
Post Reply
User avatar
neily
3rd Gear
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:30 am
Location: Deepest Essex
Contact:

Post by neily » Thu May 08, 2008 9:35 pm

I don't think you actually wrote your last 3 replies yourself Blower - not your tone or style, doesn't match previous posts .... hmmmm.... I suspect someone else wrote those ....
Perhaps it was the almighty GOD himself ...... :roll: Oh no sorry, my mistake that story is a load of :dung: Oh bugger thats blasphemy - looks like I'm well and truly f0cked for the rest of my life.....
2001 RS4 Avant - thats been touched by the MRC magic wand.....

RS246 Live! CLICK HERE for details of the big RS246 event for 2008

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Fri May 09, 2008 1:12 am

I conducted a simple experiment on google and entered in "how old is the universe". Still they cannot make up their minds, EVEN TODAY IN 2008, though I did come across the 13.73 billion that you quoted. Its a hoot looking at these ridiculous figures even with today's technological developments and seeing the ridiculous error margins. One site said 10-16 billion years old. There is still a 60% error margin built into that estimate. Now you can pick at the year when one estimate was made but I think you are missing the point, they can't make up their minds and this is clearly not an exact science. Where is the constancy?

You assume that light has a constant speed through a vacuum because of controlled experiments conducted in the lab. This assumption is now superimposed on the area we call space, taking it as a given that light can travel through space without hinderance. Light has actually been speeded up to 300 times its normal rate(the assumption that light cannot be speeded up past its normal rate of travel is not true, its already been done). So in a controlled environment Einstein was correct to say that light is a constant and has a finite speed. However in the real world, he is quite wrong since fluctuating temperature changes in space would automatically speed up or slow down light, not to mention obstacles, such as the gravity of other planets etc. So to look at a star that is 10 million light years away and say that is how far it is I think is a grave mistake as that would assume a journey that was not hindered in any way. This would also assume that the speed of light remained at the 186,000 miles per second mark. Since experiments have shown that light can be speeded up past its normal rate, how do we know for sure that this did not occur during its journey to us? The answer is we don't know for sure, we can only guess. We can say that the distance measured is an estimation but to be honest, we don't know for sure the actual distance.

We may have been hit by meteors and debris from comets in the past but nothing that would threaten the entire planet has struck us yet.

These so called effects of black holes are yet again assumed to be the result of black holes being present. I'm not saying that black holes do not exist however, I'm not going conclude gravitational lensing, spiral galaxies etc as a final result. There could indeed be some other phenomena causing these effects that we don't know about yet and because we cannot see a black hole(only the activity which is assumed to be caused by it), I going to keep my research open. Unless we are actually there at the spot, no sure conclusions can be drawn as to what is causing the phenomenas mentioned above. We can hypothosize a black hole, which indeed it might be, however the case cannot be closed there.

Now we are actually dealing with science and intelligent research which is up my street. Science means and knowledge gained by testing, observation, experimentation and demonstration. The reason I mainly reject evolution is because it tries to erase the line between the facts and its interpretation of the facts and tries to put its interpretation in the fact column, not to mention the wild extrapolations it makes based on small pieces of observable data. There are also major political reasons to reject evolution. You forget that Hitler used this theory to justify killing off the Jews. Darwin was also a racist. The full title to I believe was his first book is: The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life. Evolution is the foundation for racism, nazism, socialism, communism, marxism and the coming new world order, coming soon to a city near you. Where you remove God, place man in charge, have no absolute laws and declare that it is every man for himself, this is surely going to be a recipe for disaster and that is exactly what the evolution theory does.

It is interesting to note that Darwin wasn't even a scientist nor did he have a degree in any science. His only degree was in theology. In fact most of the proponents of evolution never had a degree in any of the sciences yet they are deemed as great scientists today, how?
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Fri May 09, 2008 1:20 am

neily wrote:
I don't think you actually wrote your last 3 replies yourself Blower - not your tone or style, doesn't match previous posts .... hmmmm.... I suspect someone else wrote those ....
Perhaps it was the almighty GOD himself ...... :roll: Oh no sorry, my mistake that story is a load of :dung: Oh bugger thats blasphemy - looks like I'm well and truly f0cked for the rest of my life.....

Here we go, another numb nut with nothing constructive to say but profanity and vain words........grow up boy.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Fri May 09, 2008 10:00 am

Blower wrote:I conducted a simple experiment on google and entered in "how old is the universe". Still they cannot make up their minds, EVEN TODAY IN 2008, though I did come across the 13.73 billion that you quoted. Its a hoot looking at these ridiculous figures even with today's technological developments and seeing the ridiculous error margins. One site said 10-16 billion years old. There is still a 60% error margin built into that estimate. Now you can pick at the year when one estimate was made but I think you are missing the point, they can't make up their minds and this is clearly not an exact science. Where is the constancy?

You assume that light has a constant speed through a vacuum because of controlled experiments conducted in the lab. This assumption is now superimposed on the area we call space, taking it as a given that light can travel through space without hinderance. Light has actually been speeded up to 300 times its normal rate(the assumption that light cannot be speeded up past its normal rate of travel is not true, its already been done). So in a controlled environment Einstein was correct to say that light is a constant and has a finite speed. However in the real world, he is quite wrong since fluctuating temperature changes in space would automatically speed up or slow down light, not to mention obstacles, such as the gravity of other planets etc. So to look at a star that is 10 million light years away and say that is how far it is I think is a grave mistake as that would assume a journey that was not hindered in any way. This would also assume that the speed of light remained at the 186,000 miles per second mark. Since experiments have shown that light can be speeded up past its normal rate, how do we know for sure that this did not occur during its journey to us? The answer is we don't know for sure, we can only guess. We can say that the distance measured is an estimation but to be honest, we don't know for sure the actual distance.

We may have been hit by meteors and debris from comets in the past but nothing that would threaten the entire planet has struck us yet.

These so called effects of black holes are yet again assumed to be the result of black holes being present. I'm not saying that black holes do not exist however, I'm not going conclude gravitational lensing, spiral galaxies etc as a final result. There could indeed be some other phenomena causing these effects that we don't know about yet and because we cannot see a black hole(only the activity which is assumed to be caused by it), I going to keep my research open. Unless we are actually there at the spot, no sure conclusions can be drawn as to what is causing the phenomenas mentioned above. We can hypothosize a black hole, which indeed it might be, however the case cannot be closed there.

Now we are actually dealing with science and intelligent research which is up my street. Science means and knowledge gained by testing, observation, experimentation and demonstration. The reason I mainly reject evolution is because it tries to erase the line between the facts and its interpretation of the facts and tries to put its interpretation in the fact column, not to mention the wild extrapolations it makes based on small pieces of observable data. There are also major political reasons to reject evolution. You forget that Hitler used this theory to justify killing off the Jews. Darwin was also a racist. The full title to I believe was his first book is: The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life. Evolution is the foundation for racism, nazism, socialism, communism, marxism and the coming new world order, coming soon to a city near you. Where you remove God, place man in charge, have no absolute laws and declare that it is every man for himself, this is surely going to be a recipe for disaster and that is exactly what the evolution theory does.

It is interesting to note that Darwin wasn't even a scientist nor did he have a degree in any science. His only degree was in theology. In fact most of the proponents of evolution never had a degree in any of the sciences yet they are deemed as great scientists today, how?
Ok - you're starting to sound more reasoned in some parts of this post. But I'm very keen to see the evidence, or even an article, on how light has been speeded up 300 times! I hope you're not getting confused with experiments in quantum entanglement. A link to back up what you say would be good. I've never seen anything about this - and I feel sure that if this were true much would be being made of it! There are some theories floating around today that suggest the speed of light may have varied in the very early universe (and I do mean very early) - but they are employed to try and get around the theoretical inflation period of the big-bang which some physicists disagree with. Oh and please don't use the fact that physicists disagree with each other as a method to discredit science again - science is an iterative process of theory, experiment, measurement and observation, so of course scientists will disagree as they put forward their own theories and formulate their own experiments in the pursuit of truth.

Again I think you're clutching at straws to invoke the varying estimates of the age of the universe as a method for discrediting science - many years ago the size of the earth was not known, and varying estimates were put forward - eventually, as technology and measurements became more advanced the accurate answers were arrived at - the same principle applies now to the size and age of the universe (but we will of course always be limited by the finite speed of light in a vacuum as measured today)

I'm still a bit suspect as to whether you wrote this post yourself Blower - it really doesn't sound like you at all - it's far too open-minded!

Also - I don't think it's strictly fair to blame evolution theory for fascism, communism, nazism etc - these political factions may have used parts of the theory for their own agendas - but to say that the theory actually gave rise to the factions is wrong and misleading - and if anything it comes across as if your faction is using evolution theory for your own agenda!

It also sounds to me that whoever wrote the post may not truly believe in this 6000 yr old earth nonsense .... ?

The post after the one quoted above is authentic Blower though - I can tell that because the insults are present ... :lol:
Deus ex machina

User avatar
dubwhizz
2nd Gear
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:25 pm

Post by dubwhizz » Fri May 09, 2008 10:37 am

I'm still waiting for Blower to prove anything in the great book of his happened. it seems the focus has been on rubbishing science.

anyone got proof jesus could heal people? that he could walk on water? that he could turn water into wine? when I see that, I may revise my opinion that blower os either a poor misguided fool or a 15 year old script kiddie intent on winding everyone on here up.

s4woody
Cruising
Posts: 3764
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:45 pm
Location: surrey.
Contact:

Post by s4woody » Fri May 09, 2008 3:25 pm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
how old is the earth..not the universe as blower googled...
GARTH ROAD MOT CENTRE LTD
Unit 2 1-7 Amenity Way Garth rd Morden Surrey SM4 4AX
Exhausts,Clutches,Diagnostics,Tyres,Servicing and Air Conditioning
Opening soon is our new motorcycle Mot bay
020 83353032

s4woody
Cruising
Posts: 3764
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:45 pm
Location: surrey.
Contact:

Post by s4woody » Fri May 09, 2008 3:30 pm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
how old is the earth..not the universe as blower googled...
GARTH ROAD MOT CENTRE LTD
Unit 2 1-7 Amenity Way Garth rd Morden Surrey SM4 4AX
Exhausts,Clutches,Diagnostics,Tyres,Servicing and Air Conditioning
Opening soon is our new motorcycle Mot bay
020 83353032

S4TAN
Cruising
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Planet of the Apes

Post by S4TAN » Fri May 09, 2008 4:08 pm

Nice find woody! Blower, I sincerely hope that you (and whover has been assisting you in writing some of your recent posts) read EVERY SINGLE word of the article in woody's link. Especially the bit about radiometric dating ...!
Deus ex machina

User avatar
neily
3rd Gear
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:30 am
Location: Deepest Essex
Contact:

Post by neily » Fri May 09, 2008 7:11 pm

Oh dear Blower, in a weird kind of way I feel sorry for you believing in nothing more than a collection of stories/fables
2001 RS4 Avant - thats been touched by the MRC magic wand.....

RS246 Live! CLICK HERE for details of the big RS246 event for 2008

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Fri May 09, 2008 9:47 pm

SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Fri May 09, 2008 10:02 pm

I have no problem with science and never have. Now we are beginning to talk about science, I have no objections. The creationist and the evolutionist are both looking at the same evidence but drawing different conclusions. I just refuse to look at the observable data and extrapolate from it more than is reasonable and scientific.

The evolutionist as I stated before frequently jumps in and out of religion without even realising it. Frequently used religious terms reside in the evolutionary vocabulary such as the following: estimated, calculated, maybe, believe, it could have been, it might have, speculate, possibly, imagine, reckon etc. These are religious terms, these are not the kind of terms that would be used in relation to science which is demonstrable, observable and testable. As soon as you begin to use this kind of terminology, you immediately leave science and enter into a religion as you are know referring to the unseen. As I stated before, because of this, evolution is not a science, it is a hypothosis, a theory and a religion.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Fri May 09, 2008 10:15 pm

Its still me posting, it has always been, I just can't stand the stupid, snide comments from some of the observers on here who do not have the bottle to join in, clearly showing that this debate is way over their heads. If they such as Varsity, Dom81, Neily, Bytejunkie and others have nothing constructive to bring to the table, they should keep silent and continue observing in order to avoid embarrassment.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

User avatar
Turbo Joe
4th Gear
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Turbo Joe » Sat May 10, 2008 12:22 am

As for the age of the earth, I'm familiar with Dave Matson's site talk origins. However the evolutionist still has the problem of explaining how the universe came to be. To date evolutionists cannot explain where the matter came from for this big bang. They cannot say that the matter made itself because this would be a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. We know matter cannot make itself, so where did it come from. You see without a feasible beginning, you cannot have a coherent theory.

The evolutionist can not explain where the energy came from to created the spinning process of the matter nor how the energy was actually initiated into this great spin, how did the ball get rolling? Petrol contains plenty of energy but spilling some on your front seat won't get your car going,in other words just having the energy present is not enough. You would need a complex mechanism to use the energy present in order to get some sort motion and this is the gap that the evolutionist cannot fill. They cannot jump to stage 3 having not successfully completed stages 1 and 2.

This is only the beginning of problems for the theory. Although I partly reject the theory because of my faith, mostly it is rejected because of the huge gaps and inconsistencies it regularly displays. As for radiometric dating, the main problem I find with it is that there is no original baseline to refer back to and authenticate accuracy. For example, if everyone's watches and clocks were to suddenly cease working, we could go back to using the sun and the moon to tell time as that is what man has used from the beginning of time. However with the radiometric dating methods, there is no base and the methods are just assumed to work and yield accurate results.

If we used a sundial now and compared it to normal clocks and watches, the margin of error would be extremely minimal and the errors could easily be explained(one person wanting their clock 5 minutes fast, another 10 minutes fast, a clock's battery running low etc), however with the dating methods, the errors are far from marginal, they are too big. From 8.4 billion to 20 billion for the age of the universe is an extremely large gap. These anomalies cannot be ignored and I find that evolutionists are constantly attempting to dodge these issues. There are too many assumptions built into the theory which is exactly like building your house on sand.
SKN remap, K&N Filter, Miltek CatBack Twin Jet-
BHP under Construction!!!!

User avatar
GardinerG
Top Gear
Posts: 2285
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Post by GardinerG » Sat May 10, 2008 2:12 am

Blower wrote:However the evolutionist still has the problem of explaining how the universe came to be. To date evolutionists cannot explain where the matter came from for this big bang. They cannot say that the matter made itself because this would be a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. We know matter cannot make itself, so where did it come from. You see without a feasible beginning, you cannot have a coherent theory.
Maybe the simple answer is that there never was a beginning to the universe, it just is. Time is a human concept after all and perhaps the universe is timeless just as it is probably infinite. All the scientific theories we have today are simply our way of trying to understand what is out there, and to be frank are probably wrong anyway. Why does there have to be a beginning to it all? IMHO if the universe is timeless then it does away with the need for big bang theories and God in equal measure. I'm sure you will laugh at what I say here, but if God created the world/universe then who created God (age old question there)? In fact, as I am sure you are aware, there are religions based on God and the Universe being the same thing (Pantheism), conscious or otherwise. Personally I think that is more likely to be true, but is just as unproveable.

Dom81
Top Gear
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:00 am
Location: London

Post by Dom81 » Sat May 10, 2008 9:44 am

Blower wrote:Its still me posting, it has always been, I just can't stand the stupid, snide comments from some of the observers on here who do not have the bottle to join in, clearly showing that this debate is way over their heads. If they such as Varsity, Dom81, Neily, Bytejunkie and others have nothing constructive to bring to the table, they should keep silent and continue observing in order to avoid embarrassment.
I'm not entering your debate Blower (and yes - it's way over my head) but again you generalise. I've made no stupid or snide comments, and certainly haven't embarrassed myself. I've taken issue with you associating a mother's death with lack of faith, and with your assumption that non-Christians (me included) automatically lead less virtuous lives.

As for the others, you're posting in an open forum so of course you'll get comments. If you want a private debate then move in with S4TAN...
2007 Daytona RS4 Avant

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests