Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part III

Specific Details, PLEASE READ

Some people have complained that I am not being accurate with the distances I use for distant objects in the universe. In an old expanding universe (like the one we live in) if we measure an object as being 12.7 billion light years away, we are seeing it in the past. 12.7 billion years ago that object was in fact much closer to us, and today it is much much farther away, due to the expansion of space. They are entirely correct. However, in this video and others I take the position of the YECs in an attempt to prove them wrong. In a 6,000 year old universe the expansion of space would not have had a great effect on the distance between objects. Therefore, we do not need to take this correction into account.

I did not take conservation of momentum into account. Doing so would only make the problem worse. P = mv. If I reduce m by a factor of 2 I must increase v by the same factor to keep the momentum (P) constant. Reducing gravity allows objects to become free of gravitation systems with their current velocities (hence why the solar system flings itself apart). Increasing their velocity only makes the problem worse.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?i5z1neeyjpt

To download the gravity simulator go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?06ymwmwm5ym

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?jybn120zmyd

Think about it.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Astronomy
• Universe
• Distance
• Einstein
• Newton
• Energy
• Age
• Bible
• Speed
• Light
• c-decay
• Theory
• Gravity
• Deny
• Intelligent
• Design

[saguhh00]

Why can't scientists build a time machine so that we can send creationists back to the Middle Age they love so much?

[1tabligh]

@thybigballs Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.

[1tabligh]

@thybigballs Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.

[thybigballs]

@1tabligh So, you're not going to provide any evidence...er, truths in how you know your god created the universe? After this, we will move on to how you know what it wants, if you like. But please, now would be a great time to fulfill the request. Remember, assertions without proof require no further rebuttals.

[1tabligh]

@thybigballs Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.

[1tabligh]

@thybigballs The atheist Delusion!

Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.

Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.

[thybigballs]

@1tabligh It would be just wonderful if someone could prove the existence of a universal creator, It would be even more fantastic if this person could prove what it's name was and what it wanted. Hey, maybe YOU can prove all of this for us! What would be your first piece of evidence a god created the universe. I hope it's juicy with rational information and facts. Do tell.