It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Good attempt...but it's not an ad hom. It's actually attacking the source. He's not even blaming you, he's saying that you're misinformed by improper material. An ad hominem would have been:
"Look at the idiot using this stupid source"
Your character was not impugned by the statement, though the character of the source is easy to throw into doubt due to bias.
The second error is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! Their conclusion was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.
what personal attacks?
No, it's addressing that the source is clearly one with a bias.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Moot point. All sources have bias. Are you trying to claim your sources have no bias towards Evolution or an old age for the universe?
The measurements of the Sun have been declining at roughly the same rate since humans began measuring the decline.
I'm making my claim based upon your Naturalist philosophy of Uniformitarianism.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
what personal attacks?
This one:
"...to save you the trouble, I know you actually can't. You're showing an incredible level of ignorance with regard to stellar mechanics and then claiming that your ignorance proves something. And the atheists are the arrogant ones?"
The personal attack was you're attempt at ridiculing my understanding of 'stellar mechanics', (I'll call it Physics).
But you see, you're not attacking MY understanding of stellar mechanics, you're attacking Dr. Jason Lisle's understanding of 'stellar mechanics'.
"The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate" ~ Dr. Jason Lisle
You don't thinks it's quite arrogant to say a P.h.D in Astrophysics from Colorado University has an:"incredible level of ignorance to stellar mechanics"??
Now THAT'S arrogant.
Madness, how many books by Creation Scientists have you ever read?
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him." ~ Proverbs 18:13
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by spy66
The Sun loses great mass and size daily.
Just imagine how massively HUUUUUUUUUUGE the Sun was 'billions' of years ago. By mathematical estimates it would have been over half the distance it currently is to the Earth. (93 million miles)
Originally posted by spy66
I would say you are onto something. Because after a compression you would have nothing but hot plasma, and the plasma will cool down by emitting of energy ( this is called expansion). As the plasma cools down by emitting of energy, the universes will start to take shape. There would probably be a lot of shining stars, planets and suns at an early stage. Earth was a shining bright light to in the beginning until it cooled down.
The grass on earth could manage to grow from other light sources then the sun, until the sun takes over as the main source of light and energy. The sun could overlap a previous light and energy source.
Originally posted by SpaceJ
What of Lot and his virgin/not virgin daughters and the incest of the daughter's raping him I suppose?
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Well i challenged you. But you resisted by not answering.
I asked you for specific scientific evidence of what caused the Big Bang.
You mentioned that something blew up. And i asked what blew up and how.
Would you care to try again?
I have been studying this subject for a very long time. Both Genesis and the scientific version. I would love to be corrected by your scientific knowledge.
Can you tell me:
1. What exploded?
2. How was the matter that exploded formed. What proses formed that matter?
3. What happened to the proses that formed the matter, or that surrounded the matter since the matter exploded?
4. Is your source challenged by any other scientific sources. If so why?
Of course, your post doesn't address the counter-points. Also, the majority of my post didn't rely upon external sources, why didn't you address that?
"But is there an argument that is so powerful that no refutation is possible? Is there an ultimate proof of creation? If by "ultimate proof" we mean an argument that will persuade everyone, then the answer has to be no. The reason is simple, persuasion is subjective. Sometimes people are not persuaded even by a very good argument. Conversely, people are (unfortunately) often persuaded by very bad arguments. Generally speaking, most people are simply not very rational; they are not good, clear thinkers. Of course this does not mean that people are unintelligent. But most of us are not rigorously objective as we would like to think. We often believe things for psychological reasons, rather than logical reasons. Many people refuse to accept a very good argument simply because they do not want to believe it's logical conclusion... However, if by an "ultimate proof" we mean an argument that is conclusive - one for which no rational refutation is possible - then I am convinced the answer is yes."
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Thank you.
Yes, the Big bang only acknowledges that the universe is expanding. And that it expanded from a point.
Since you also mentioned that science is not sure about how existence came to be. Isn't it arrogant to deny creation?
When you can't account for how it happened?
I was actually referring to the rest of my post rather than the external sources.
Now, I unfortunately lack access to a copy of the book, and it would be inanely ridiculous of anyone to ask that I refute a whole book. Nonetheless, this book still relies on the false premise that the sun is shrinking, for which the evidence is weak.