Something strange is going on with the North Star

Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
"This star system is weird in other ways."

Why should it be weird, rather than expected, that a star or solar system or galaxy out there somewhere doesn't conform to the fictional expectations of evolutionary theory?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1; 53;1).

Soon or later these theories that seek to explain the universe from an atheistic or skeptic perspective will fail, even as theories about evolution on our planet have been falsified for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: angelluciano
Mar 11, 2020
2
5
10
"This star system is weird in other ways."

Why should it be weird, rather than expected, that a star or solar system or galaxy out there somewhere doesn't conform to the fictional expectations of evolutionary theory?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1; 53;1).

Soon or later these theories that seek to explain the universe from an atheistic or skeptic perspective will fail, even as theories about evolution on our planet have been falsified for decades.
Man did not create the earth and heavens, but man did create all the gods that have come and gone. You shouldn't toss around words like fool and falsified, given your stance, as it's just too ironic...
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Man did not create the earth and heavens, but man did create all the gods that have come and gone. You shouldn't toss around words like fool and falsified, given your stance, as it's just too ironic...
No, man did not create the God of heaven who created heaven, earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture" (Psalms 100:3).

Darwinian evolution requires long periods of time. Yet the contact points between layers of the geologic column tend to be flat. Around the Grand Canyon are two layers that are supposed to differ in age by 12 million years, and another two layers that are supposed to differ by over 100 million years. During those lengths of time significant erosional features should have formed and then been buried within the geologic column, especially since evolutionists propose that intervening missing layers entirely eroded away. Yet such erosional features aren't there, and the contact points are instead quite flat.

This observable evidence points to rapid deposition. The layers were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers. And since these layers were deposited by some sort of water action, we need to have a catastrophic flood rapidly depositing the layers over large sections of the globe.

If you don't think this evidence affirms the existence of the God of the Bible, I would be most interested in hearing why it wouldn't. I can't think of any sort of scenario that could result in little or no erosion between layers of the geologic column, and rapid deposition of those layers over large areas of the globe through water action, within an atheistic or skeptic model of origins and history. But maybe you can think of an alternative, and if you can, I'd like to hear about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: angelluciano
Mar 11, 2020
2
5
10
No, man did not create the God of heaven who created heaven, earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture" (Psalms 100:3).

Darwinian evolution requires long periods of time. Yet the contact points between layers of the geologic column tend to be flat. Around the Grand Canyon are two layers that are supposed to differ in age by 12 million years, and another two layers that are supposed to differ by over 100 million years. During those lengths of time significant erosional features should have formed and then been buried within the geologic column, especially since evolutionists propose that intervening missing layers entirely eroded away. Yet such erosional features aren't there, and the contact points are instead quite flat.

This observable evidence points to rapid deposition. The layers were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers. And since these layers were deposited by some sort of water action, we need to have a catastrophic flood rapidly depositing the layers over large sections of the globe.

If you don't think this evidence affirms the existence of the God of the Bible, I would be most interested in hearing why it wouldn't. I can't think of any sort of scenario that could result in little or no erosion between layers of the geologic column, and rapid deposition of those layers over large areas of the globe through water action, within an atheistic or skeptic model of origins and history. But maybe you can think of an alternative, and if you can, I'd like to hear about it.
Pickle, please stop quoting scripture, it does little to help your argument. That Yahweh/El would become capital G God was a matter of religious interpretation and reflects the human compulsion for asceticism. All the gods worshiped in the Levant did not suddenly cease being useful devices once ascetic followers of Yahweh/El rejected the pantheon (to say nothing of the myriad gods worshiped by myriad peoples around the globe).

A discussion about post-glacial-retreat flooding could be a better place for your theories on, presumably, strata deposition and its correlation with the Great Flood. Such stories are endemic to traditional societies around the globe because the end of the last glacial period saw huge changes come to coastal and riverine environments - areas people have forever chosen to settle and call home. The Eridu Genesis - from which a huge amount of biblical Genesis was cribbed - ascribes the flood to gods upset that humans weren't worshipfully sacrificing enough. This is socio-religious equivocation - floodwaters ruined our homes and foodstuffs because we sinned too frequently and thus deserved divine punishment.

Specifically, your reference to the Colorado River Valley deposition layers has more to do with the catastrophic floods that resulted from glacial lake Missoula (and prior lakes from prior glacial retreats) bursting through earthen dams, draining colossal built-up reservoirs, and wreaking watery havoc on what we today call the western US.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Be well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nytowl223
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Pickle, please stop quoting scripture, it does little to help your argument. That Yahweh/El would become capital G God was a matter of religious interpretation and reflects the human compulsion for asceticism. All the gods worshiped in the Levant did not suddenly cease being useful devices once ascetic followers of Yahweh/El rejected the pantheon (to say nothing of the myriad gods worshiped by myriad peoples around the globe).

A discussion about post-glacial-retreat flooding could be a better place for your theories on, presumably, strata deposition and its correlation with the Great Flood. Such stories are endemic to traditional societies around the globe because the end of the last glacial period saw huge changes come to coastal and riverine environments - areas people have forever chosen to settle and call home. The Eridu Genesis - from which a huge amount of biblical Genesis was cribbed - ascribes the flood to gods upset that humans weren't worshipfully sacrificing enough. This is socio-religious equivocation - floodwaters ruined our homes and foodstuffs because we sinned too frequently and thus deserved divine punishment.

Specifically, your reference to the Colorado River Valley deposition layers has more to do with the catastrophic floods that resulted from glacial lake Missoula (and prior lakes from prior glacial retreats) bursting through earthen dams, draining colossal built-up reservoirs, and wreaking watery havoc on what we today call the western US.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Be well.
Sure, quoting Scripture does help. You asserted that all gods, including the God of the Bible, were created by men, and the Bible explicitly says that is not the case. While from your perspective that doesn't prove that claim to be true, it does shift the burden of proof, leaving you with the difficult task of proving your assertion to be true.

But please note that it appears that your religious biases are hindering you from understanding or answering my question. I fail to see how your comments explain the stark lack of significant erosional features seen between layers evolutionists date to be as old as 500 million years (https://creation.com/flat-gaps). Certainly the draining of lake Missoula wouldn't leave behind a lack of significant erosional features. And Eridu Genesis doesn't help your case, since it doesn't explain how the lack of significant erosional features can exist within an atheist or skeptic paradigm.

Surely attacking someone else's religious beliefs is easier than proving one's own, especially when geologic phenomena is one's bible, and those phenomena don't support one's views. But give it a try anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: angelluciano
Mar 11, 2020
2
0
10
No, no, no Pickle do NOT let the likes of Icarus stop you from quoting scripture... you can quote what you like, he doesn't have to read it. smh You only made one comment anyway until he made it into a conversation... Personally, I LOVE this site and I truly believe that what we call the wonderful subject of science is merely us discovering what God built, anyway. And I'm entitled to feel that way, think that way, and express that way. Humans will NEVER figure out all the secrets the universe holds (or even the world, for that matter) because we're not meant to. We still don't know what's going on right here on earth inside the Bermuda Triangle and that's just ONE mystery on earth. lol Clearly the universe is ever-changing for a reason. Doesn't matter what models they come up with, just like they said, whenever they create a model they're gonna either find it's obsolete or simply doesn't fit. But being a science lover, it's fun watching the few discovers we do find & watching them try... God is good and very interesting.
 
Mar 11, 2020
2
0
10
btw Pickle... in all my 50 years your explanations have to be some of the most logical, educated answers I've heard in a VERY long time... lol smh sheesh. I'd be shocked if Icarus didn't come back with family members or something to make his case sound worse. lol Cause you can't argue the facts that you gave... God bless you. (but i still love science... lol You need to be a scientist, geez.)
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
btw Pickle... in all my 50 years your explanations have to be some of the most logical, educated answers I've heard in a VERY long time... lol smh sheesh. I'd be shocked if Icarus didn't come back with family members or something to make his case sound worse. lol Cause you can't argue the facts that you gave... God bless you. (but i still love science... lol You need to be a scientist, geez.)
Thanks for your kind comments. A lot of wisdom in some of your comments.
 
Dec 18, 2019
2
1
10
Something's up with the North Star, a cepheid. Its distance, mass and age should be easy to measure. But new calculations keep disagreeing with one another and failing to make sense.

Something strange is going on with the North Star : Read more
If the telescopes that have the proper angle to view Polaris can't function correctly with the level of brightness the star emits it seems to me that they could design a filter that fits over the lens to reduce the brightness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nytowl223
Dec 7, 2019
18
4
35
It may be that Halton Arp was correct in that redshifts are not distance indicators, but can be intrinsic to a given celestial object. If so this would give rise to variations in its calculated distance, in addition to any intrinsic variations in luminosity.
 
Mar 19, 2020
309
43
730
No, man did not create the God of heaven who created heaven, earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture" (Psalms 100:3).

Darwinian evolution requires long periods of time. Yet the contact points between layers of the geologic column tend to be flat. Around the Grand Canyon are two layers that are supposed to differ in age by 12 million years, and another two layers that are supposed to differ by over 100 million years. During those lengths of time significant erosional features should have formed and then been buried within the geologic column, especially since evolutionists propose that intervening missing layers entirely eroded away. Yet such erosional features aren't there, and the contact points are instead quite flat.

This observable evidence points to rapid deposition. The layers were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers. And since these layers were deposited by some sort of water action, we need to have a catastrophic flood rapidly depositing the layers over large sections of the globe.

If you don't think this evidence affirms the existence of the God of the Bible, I would be most interested in hearing why it wouldn't. I can't think of any sort of scenario that could result in little or no erosion between layers of the geologic column, and rapid deposition of those layers over large areas of the globe through water action, within an atheistic or skeptic model of origins and history. But maybe you can think of an alternative, and if you can, I'd like to hear about it.
So you are using science, but only the kind you want, to prove that you need a global flood. I have been to the areas of the glacial lake minssolua floods. A global flood is insane considering the affect a small lake had on this area. These floods are older than you think the world is and they still left scars on the land.

Also, Rock layers are not, ever, perfectly flat, even if they are close to it, they may be uplifted and completely different in angle. The amount of time it takes for your sedimentary layers to compress, changing environments mean they could erode or deposit differently. The here and the now was not how it always has been and not how it always will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeetsN123
Mar 19, 2020
309
43
730
No, no, no Pickle do NOT let the likes of Icarus stop you from quoting scripture... you can quote what you like, he doesn't have to read it. smh You only made one comment anyway until he made it into a conversation... Personally, I LOVE this site and I truly believe that what we call the wonderful subject of science is merely us discovering what God built, anyway. And I'm entitled to feel that way, think that way, and express that way. Humans will NEVER figure out all the secrets the universe holds (or even the world, for that matter) because we're not meant to. We still don't know what's going on right here on earth inside the Bermuda Triangle and that's just ONE mystery on earth. lol Clearly the universe is ever-changing for a reason. Doesn't matter what models they come up with, just like they said, whenever they create a model they're gonna either find it's obsolete or simply doesn't fit. But being a science lover, it's fun watching the few discovers we do find & watching them try... God is good and very interesting.
Yes, a good god, that can do anything he wants, but can't muster enough goodness to stop people from starving.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
So you are using science, but only the kind you want, to prove that you need a global flood. I have been to the areas of the glacial lake minssolua floods. A global flood is insane considering the affect a small lake had on this area. These floods are older than you think the world is and they still left scars on the land.

Also, Rock layers are not, ever, perfectly flat, even if they are close to it, they may be uplifted and completely different in angle. The amount of time it takes for your sedimentary layers to compress, changing environments mean they could erode or deposit differently. The here and the now was not how it always has been and not how it always will be.
Your last sentence shows that you reject uniformitarianism, which is good. But then, if you do, why not be open to other models?

WikiPedia states regarding lake Missoula's floods: "These floods are noteworthy for producing canyons and other large geologic features through cataclysms rather than through more typical gradual processes." I assume you do not disagree.

Now, please point to a place, preferably within the Grand Canyon area, where a canyon has been preserved within the geologic column. If you can't, my point still stands.

"The amount of time it takes for your sedimentary layers to compress ...."

The burden would be on you to show why it really takes such a long amount of time, rather than being able to happen during a single global cataclysm, especially given the geologic evidence that the formations we see were formed relatively recently.

In case you didn't read my comments on the following already, one such evidence is the U/Pb ratios in U halos from Triassic and Jurassic coalified wood. The published report noted that (a) isotope infiltration happened before compression and before coalification, and (b) the ratios in the Triassic samples yielded an age a minimum of a factor of 760 less than what evolutionists assume such formations to be.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Yes, a good god, that can do anything he wants, but can't muster enough goodness to stop people from starving.
What? Would you prefer that we all be robots, with no freedom of choice whatsoever?

In all likelihood, you have plenty to eat. What are you doing to feed the hungry? Have you ever considered the possibility that God gave you an abundance so that the hungry might be fed, through you? And if you instead do nothing to help those in need, is it fair to blame God for your own negligence?

If you don't like the pronoun "you" in some of the places above, just substitute words that refer to those that have plenty. Don't let my wording obscure the point.

In this world today, God has provided enough food for all. It isn't His fault if some hoard it, turn it into biofuel, raise the prices on it till the poor can't afford it, feed a lot of it to livestock rather than to people, etc. he put us here to be a blessing to those around us. We need to start doing our job and stop blaming Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magimae
Mar 19, 2020
309
43
730
What? Would you prefer that we all be robots, with no freedom of choice whatsoever?

In all likelihood, you have plenty to eat. What are you doing to feed the hungry? Have you ever considered the possibility that God gave you an abundance so that the hungry might be fed, through you? And if you instead do nothing to help those in need, is it fair to blame God for your own negligence?

If you don't like the pronoun "you" in some of the places above, just substitute words that refer to those that have plenty. Don't let my wording obscure the point.

In this world today, God has provided enough food for all. It isn't His fault if some hoard it, turn it into biofuel, raise the prices on it till the poor can't afford it, feed a lot of it to livestock rather than to people, etc. he put us here to be a blessing to those around us. We need to start doing our job and stop blaming Him.
Is there free will in heaven?
Also yes, a participate in a food pantry every month and donate regularly.
 
Mar 19, 2020
309
43
730
Your last sentence shows that you reject uniformitarianism, which is good. But then, if you do, why not be open to other models?

WikiPedia states regarding lake Missoula's floods: "These floods are noteworthy for producing canyons and other large geologic features through cataclysms rather than through more typical gradual processes." I assume you do not disagree.

Now, please point to a place, preferably within the Grand Canyon area, where a canyon has been preserved within the geologic column. If you can't, my point still stands.

"The amount of time it takes for your sedimentary layers to compress ...."

The burden would be on you to show why it really takes such a long amount of time, rather than being able to happen during a single global cataclysm, especially given the geologic evidence that the formations we see were formed relatively recently.

In case you didn't read my comments on the following already, one such evidence is the U/Pb ratios in U halos from Triassic and Jurassic coalified wood. The published report noted that (a) isotope infiltration happened before compression and before coalification, and (b) the ratios in the Triassic samples yielded an age a minimum of a factor of 760 less than what evolutionists assume such formations to be.
I'm genuinely interested! Where is that report? I'm writing a report for school about the Triassic- Jurassic extinction boundary, and I think it might have some useful information.
That aside, to refute your point, I need to know how old you think the earth is. I just assumed earlier, but I don't want to make any empty remarks.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
I'm genuinely interested! Where is that report? I'm writing a report for school about the Triassic- Jurassic extinction boundary, and I think it might have some useful information.
That aside, to refute your point, I need to know how old you think the earth is. I just assumed earlier, but I don't want to make any empty remarks.
I'll warn you. When you read the report, think for yourself. Don't just take someone else's word for anything. There is an evolutionary apologist out there whose "rebuttal" gets thrown in my face over and over again, when his "rebuttal" doesn't even really deal with the issues involved. I spoke at a university on certain issues, and even refuted the "rebuttal" during my talk, and it still got referred to in the question period as the answer.


Recently, someone spent the time to read it, I think more than once, and didn't understand what it was saying. So read carefully.

I believe life on earth has been here about 6000 years. I favor the idea that the planet has been here that long too, and I think I can make a geological case for both.
 
Mar 6, 2020
138
28
630
"This star system is weird in other ways."

Why should it be weird, rather than expected, that a star or solar system or galaxy out there somewhere doesn't conform to the fictional expectations of evolutionary theory?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1; 53;1).

Soon or later these theories that seek to explain the universe from an atheistic or skeptic perspective will fail, even as theories about evolution on our planet have been falsified for decades.
Falsified for decades? There has been no evidence that disproves, or even calls into doubt, the process of evolution. I recommend you try reading Richard Dawkin's book called The Greatest Show on Earth. I think you will find it quite informative.
 
Mar 6, 2020
138
28
630
I'll warn you. When you read the report, think for yourself. Don't just take someone else's word for anything. There is an evolutionary apologist out there whose "rebuttal" gets thrown in my face over and over again, when his "rebuttal" doesn't even really deal with the issues involved. I spoke at a university on certain issues, and even refuted the "rebuttal" during my talk, and it still got referred to in the question period as the answer.


Recently, someone spent the time to read it, I think more than once, and didn't understand what it was saying. So read carefully.

I believe life on earth has been here about 6000 years. I favor the idea that the planet has been here that long too, and I think I can make a geological case for both.
What evidence do you have, as I would like to see it. It would have to be pretty earth-shattering, as we already have radioactive dating technology that shows far more than 6,000 years, the accepted estimate is about 4.5 billion for the life of the planet. The earth at 6,00 years old would be a terrible place to live, to say the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nytowl223
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Falsified for decades? There has been no evidence that disproves, or even calls into doubt, the process of evolution. I recommend you try reading Richard Dawkin's book called The Greatest Show on Earth. I think you will find it quite informative.
Actually, there's lots of evidence out there. For one thing, no viable mechanism has been identified that can produce the genetic changes required within the postulated time frame, changes that require the addition of significant new information and new functionality.

Now consider just one necessity, the change of chromosome number from one species to another. What would be the frequency of a random change in chromosome number? How would that affect fertility, of that individual and his or her offspring? What would be the odds of that individual mating with another that had the same change in chromosome number? What would be the odds of that change then becoming a dominant characteristic within an entire population?

The human genome is composed of 3.2 billion base pairs, which is the equivalent of an 800 MB computer program. No one who proposes that an 800 MB computer program came into being through random mutation would ever be taken seriously.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
What evidence do you have, as I would like to see it. It would have to be pretty earth-shattering, as we already have radioactive dating technology that shows far more than 6,000 years, the accepted estimate is about 4.5 billion for the life of the planet. The earth at 6,00 years old would be a terrible place to live, to say the least.
Start by looking at the article I linked to, which shows that U/Pb ratios in Jurassic and Triassic coalified wood samples were way too high, resulting in an age for the Triassic samples that differs from the age assumed by evolutionists by a factor of at least 760.

Another line of evidence would be the Pb and He retention rates of Precambrian zircons dated by evolutionists at 1.5 billion years. Those retention rates were consistent with an age of thousands of years, and not consistent with an age of 1.5 billion years.

Another line of evidence would be the discovery of soft tissue, high protein levels, cartilage, and, most recently, DNA in dinosaur bones. The original discovery was by accident because this stuff isn't supposed to be able to survive for 65+ million years, the age evolutionists assume dinosaurs to be, and so no one was looking for it.

You mention radioactive dating. The problem there is that the entire range of measurements appears to not be always disclosed. Only the measurements that fit the accepted theory might be disclosed. We know this is true because of the instance documented in this article: http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff/

In that instance, a single formation was dated as low as .52 million years, and as high as 230 million years. The full range of scatter only got exposed because three rival labs were slinging mud at each other in the open scientific literature. Without that rivalry, and without the need to redate the rock because the date originally settled on didn't fit the later finding of hominid fossils underneath the formation, w3e would never have known that the total spread of dates ranged from .52 to 230 million years.
 
Mar 6, 2020
138
28
630
Start by looking at the article I linked to, which shows that U/Pb ratios in Jurassic and Triassic coalified wood samples were way too high, resulting in an age for the Triassic samples that differs from the age assumed by evolutionists by a factor of at least 760.

Another line of evidence would be the Pb and He retention rates of Precambrian zircons dated by evolutionists at 1.5 billion years. Those retention rates were consistent with an age of thousands of years, and not consistent with an age of 1.5 billion years.

Another line of evidence would be the discovery of soft tissue, high protein levels, cartilage, and, most recently, DNA in dinosaur bones. The original discovery was by accident because this stuff isn't supposed to be able to survive for 65+ million years, the age evolutionists assume dinosaurs to be, and so no one was looking for it.

You mention radioactive dating. The problem there is that the entire range of measurements appears to not be always disclosed. Only the measurements that fit the accepted theory might be disclosed. We know this is true because of the instance documented in this article: http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff/

In that instance, a single formation was dated as low as .52 million years, and as high as 230 million years. The full range of scatter only got exposed because three rival labs were slinging mud at each other in the open scientific literature. Without that rivalry, and without the need to redate the rock because the date originally settled on didn't fit the later finding of hominid fossils underneath the formation, w3e would never have known that the total spread of dates ranged from .52 to 230 million years.
Radioactive dating cannot give an exact year, but all the radioactive dating tests we have done are consistent with the the others. All it takes to disprove it would be finding a fossil rat in the Precambrian-yet not once have we found fossils that are anachronistic. Considering that all animals were around at the same time according to creationists, why wouldn't we find these anachronistic fossils?
 
Mar 6, 2020
138
28
630
I'll warn you. When you read the report, think for yourself. Don't just take someone else's word for anything. There is an evolutionary apologist out there whose "rebuttal" gets thrown in my face over and over again, when his "rebuttal" doesn't even really deal with the issues involved. I spoke at a university on certain issues, and even refuted the "rebuttal" during my talk, and it still got referred to in the question period as the answer.


Recently, someone spent the time to read it, I think more than once, and didn't understand what it was saying. So read carefully.

I believe life on earth has been here about 6000 years. I favor the idea that the planet has been here that long too, and I think I can make a geological case for both.
What was the rebuttal?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY