Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

Originally posted by Jestaman
Hmmm, Earth is only 6,000 years old!!!! Well, it isn't, only ignoramuses think this. Anyone smart knows it is older. Something that is a million light years away would not be seen by us, but we can, therefor not 6,000 years old.

But even if the Earth didn't exist, wouldn't the light from a star a million light years away already have reached the point the Earth is at?

Originally posted by Spreadthetruth
But even if the Earth didn't exist, wouldn't the light from a star a million light years away already have reached the point the Earth is at?

because god brought the stars to show adam. hence they were made on something like the fourth day. not just a million light years away, but billions. so god would have had to make all the stars billions of years ago, yet when adam was created and god showed him the stars adam could 'instantly' see them. this was because the concept of light was not fully understood back in the day.

Originally posted by FallenOne
If gravity is indeed faster than the speed of light. Can't we 'create a ripple' like dropping a 'stone' into the 'fabric of space', and thus, 'sruf' on that wave...which, according to that article, is faster than the speed of light? Or am I not grasping it right?

I should have mentioned I am proposing space travel...Although it's probably obvious.

[edit on 29/7/2005 by FallenOne]

Well, If Enstien was correct, Gravity should travel at exactly the speed of light. Accoring to the theory of reletivty, nothing can travel faster then the speed of light.

Tim

Originally posted by ghost
Well, If Enstien was correct, Gravity should travel at exactly the speed of light. Accoring to the theory of reletivty, nothing can travel faster then the speed of light.

Tim

surely gravity isn't a constant? it differs... for example the gravitational force on jupiter is greater than the gravitational force on the moon.

Yeah.. it's dependent on mass.. I don't understand it properly but does it mean the moon's gravitational pull is slower than earth's or just weaker? I don't know if the speed of gravity changes itself or if it's the result of gravity that is measured. How can it be measured across the board? Sorry if I haven't explained myself properly.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
surely gravity isn't a constant? it differs... for example the gravitational force on jupiter is greater than the gravitational force on the moon.

For once I agree with you 100%! Gravity isn't contant. Under certin condition we can even create varition in it's apperent stringth here on earth. Why do you thing fighter pilots wear G-sutes? If it was a constant, we shouldn't be able to get these variation.

Tim

If gravity can't be faster than light.. why are there black holes?
Light can't escape them so that force must be faster [it's certainly stronger].
No I'm not trying to disagree with Einstein.. I'm sure my reasoning must be flawed in some way [thats a first].

[edit on 12-8-2005 by riley]

Well reading Stephen Hawking's work he has a rubber mat with bowling balls and marbles, so forth.

Marbles=Light Bowling Ball=planet/moon Mat=space in a 2d form
Black Holes are just that, holes. Roll a marble on the mat it falls into a hole. Roll it and it hits a bowling ball it is light hitting earth.

Also, gravity only affects things with mass, light photons have no mass, therfor gravity can not affect light!!!! BUT IT DOES!!!!!!!!!

Gravity is a theory yet all the "Kill anyone who is smart" I mean christians believe it. Why do they accept one theory that is so full of holes(Black holes that is) yet not evolution which has fewer holes?

how does gravity effect light? i thought black holes were assumptions that they actually existed?...

the way i understand it, is that gravity itself isn't what affects light directly.
it's the fact that light is transmitted through space/time, and gravity can warp the fabric of space/time, in such a way that the light has no choice but to follow the curvature of (the warped) fabric of space/time.....if that made ANY sense at all...lol

I thought it doesn't affect light, it affects and curves space. Light is still travelling the shortest distance between two points. As an example, in a 2D plane the shortest distance between two points is a straight line as we know it, on a sphere however this will be part of a great circle. If you travel in a straight line on a sphere, like on our planet, you will eventually come back onto the original point. Similarly, space is curved by mass and light will still be travelling the shortest distance between two points, a straight line, although this will not be a straight line as we usually know it, the planar version.

Edit: Seems Urn typed faster.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Simon666]

Thankyou.. it does. Kind of like a current moving leaves on a river.. much better way of explaining than 083(&%750">>.52 or whatever the formula would be.

Originally posted by Simon666 Light is still travelling the shortest distance between two points. As an example, in a 2D plane the shortest distance between two points is a straight line as we know it

yes, exactly, and 3D/2D space/time (however one finds it easier to visualise) itself is curved/warped in such a manner that the light actually folows the curvature...

(you where agreeing with me right Simon?)

Originally posted by Urn
(you where agreeing with me right Simon?

)

I agree except with the spelling of "were".

DOH!!! gotta hate being agreed with , and then that ONE lil thing (typo) screws it all up !! bah!! i'm usually so anal about my spelling to.... (dictionary.com is usually my bestest friend )

the apendix, can creationists please explain why god created an organ that humans needed 6000 years ago, yet is not needed today?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the apendix, can creationists please explain why god created an organ that humans needed 6000 years ago, yet is not needed today?

Like dinosaur bones, to test your faith. Nice God eh? :p

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the apendix, can creationists please explain why god created an organ that humans needed 6000 years ago, yet is not needed today?

From here

An examination of the appendix microscopically, shows that it contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue (known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues, GALT) occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal system. The GALT are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material.My own reaserch, in particular, is focused on examining the immunological functions of the intestine.

*snip*

The human appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually resembling such other regions of GALT as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine. These recent studies demonstrate that the human appendix is not a vestigial organ, as originally claimed.

Also....From here

For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a part of the lymphatic system. A medical publication notes in 1997 that "other bodily organs and tissues - the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine - are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection." (1)

(1) The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, New Jersey, 1997.

And....From here

At one time evolutionists postulated there were 180 ‘vestigial’ structures in the human body. Today this list has shrunk to virtually zero. No organ should be removed without good reason!
For in-depth information, please read ‘The Human Vermiform Appendix—a General Surgeon’s Reflections.’

Or, if you prefer, from a non creationist source:

talkorigins.org
Today, a growing consensus of medical specialists holds that the most likely candidate for the function of the human appendix is as a part of the gastrointestinal immune system. Several reasonable arguments exist for suspecting that the appendix may have a function in immunity. Like the rest of the caecum in humans and other primates, the appendix is highly vascular, is lymphoid-rich, and produces immune system cells normally involved with the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) (Fisher 2000; Nagler-Anderson 2001; Neiburger et al. 1976; Somekh et al. 2000; Spencer et al. 1985). Animal models, such as the rabbit and mouse, indicate that the appendix is involved in mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly the B and T lymphocyte immune response (Craig and Cebra 1975). Animal studies provide limited evidence that the appendix may function in proper development of the immune system in young juveniles (Dasso and Howell 1997; Dasso et al. 2000; Pospisil and Mage 1998).

To be fair talkorigins goes on to say this:

However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.

As you can see there is no conclusive evidence either way. Just because we don't understand its function completely, does not mean that it has no funtion....as opponents of Irreducible Complexity(Intelligent Design Theory) love to say Gonna try for "junk" DNA next?

Actually, that doesn't say at all that it is needed. Only that it might actually do something, albeit with little significance.

it serves a purpose yet we can live without them? can't be doing too much within our bodies...

what if adam had suffered from a ruptured apendix, eve would have been a widow, hence no children, and it would have been all god's fault for inventing the apendix. tutut