blackbird
-
Posts
6,678 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
Nah...that's him.
No I just looked at your link. That's not him at all. Just a second. I will see if I can find him.
-
That's what I was saying. That is not the Philip Stott I am talking about. The one you looked up died in 2004. The Philip Stott I am talking about is still alive and I met him at his second visit and series of lectures long after 2004.
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
And your evidence that the entire Universe is only 6,000 years old is from a book that was written in the Bronze Age...by folks who thought the Earth was flat.
No...they all have to be wrong according to your version of the Universe. You don't get to pick and choose....either atomic bombs work or they do not.
He's no mathematician. He's certainly not a scientist.
There is more than one Philip Stott on google. The one I heard was a professor from South Africa. Think he was born in England. He has taught mathematics in university I believe. He has traveled around the world attending conferences and such on evolution and lectured on the subject. He has written at least one book on related topics. He is a very knowledgeable speaker. Yes, I believe he has a degree or degrees, most likely in mathematics.
-
Professor Stott was a mathematician himself. He believes in mathematics. He has no problem with true science. He just doesn't agree with things like the theory of evolution which are unproven by the scientific method.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
So let's recap: you have no understanding of ANY of these things but have allowed an 'expert' to tell you that things like physics, chemistry and mathematics are wrong.
You might see where I think you're out in left field picking daisies...
This is where you are misunderstanding what I believe. I never said I don't believe Physics, chemistry and mathematics. I do believe in the conventional teachings about them. They do not conflict with the long earth age beliefs. Mathematics, chemistry, and physics is based on certain laws and principles which I would agree with.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
You're disagreeing with far more than Evolution.
Well yes, anything that claims the age of something in the universe was long, i.e. millions or billions of years, would not be in agreement with biblical creation. I would have to disagree with long ages of things.
-
2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
He's incorrect. Can you describe the 'scientific method'?
I can't remember the scientific method except to say it is a series of steps to follow before coming to a conclusion about something.
-
Churches I went to had nothing to say about science. They don't deny science except they might not agree with evolution.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
What? The scientific method is not being abandoned no matter what your church leaders say.
Well, professor Stott said it has not always been followed as it should have been. Sometimes claims have been made without clear proof and using the scientific method.
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
I'm asking you. Or will you ignore it like betsy?
I am not ignoring anything. I have not used the word metalicity. Can you explain it?
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
So physics, chemistry, mathematics and such are all simply wrong?
No, of course not. Professor Philip Stott explained that the scientific method was actually abandoned by many scientists. He explained the importance of the scientific method. Some theories in science have been abandoned as new knowledge is discovered.
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
What about metallicity? Do you have some knowledge of chemistry and how all that works?
Some but it was a long time ago. I had a chemistry lab in the basement when I was a kid. Had quite a collection of chemicals. Passed chemistry in high school but can't remember much now. I know a little about chemical reactions. What about metalicity?
-
When a scientist sees a star, he might say that light has been traveling a million light years, which is a phenomenal distance. But it was probably created around six thousand years ago.
-
3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
Another question would be...just for you pondering...why can we see farther than 6,000 ly?
The same reason the earth was created with a certain age. The whole universe would have been created with an apparent age. In an instant the universe would have been created with galaxies, stars, etc. Even with the light from stars giving the impression it has been traveling for billions of years, when in fact, it must have been created to appear that way.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
How did he do that? Or is the above probability theory all that convinced you?
I suppose I'd have a few other questions...but let's stick to this. What about metallicity? It shows the Earth wasn't created in the beginning...but rather after other stars went supernova in order to make elements beyond Lithium. As well, new stars & planets are being made as we type on our devices...any idea why?
No. I was convinced the account in Genesis is true before I heard his slide presentation. He went into all kinds of things that were very fascinating.
The universe I believe was created at the same time as the earth. So all the planets, starts, galaxies, black holes, etc. must have been created at the same time. Prior to that, perhaps there was nothing.
-
He believe the earth could have been struck by a giant meteor that caused a huge tidal wave to rush around the earth several kilometers in height. There may be some evidence for the earth being struck by a giant meteor because the earth could have been knocked off of it's axis. There is scientific evidence based upon the amount of the wobble and they have calculated when it was hit by the meteor.
-
Professor Stott also showed the Geological Time Charts with the life forms allegedly at different times. It is full of gaps that can't be properly explained.
-
If you gave a monkey a typewriter and allowed him to keep typing until he typed out the complete works of Shakespeare, how long would it take? That is like the theory of evolution. Statistically there is not enough time in the universe for evolution to occur because the random chance processes don't have enough time to create an evolving life. He said mathematically it is not possible.
-
The theory of evolution is built on something called random chance processes. Professor Stott, who is a mathematician among other things explained that the mathematical theories of probability are against evolution.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
Do you believe that?
Yes. I believe the King James Bible. I was fortunate to be able to hear a series of lectures by a scientist Professor Philip Stott for four evening on the subject of creation and evolution. It was a slide presentation. He showed how from a scientific point of view the theory of evolution doesn't hold up and many other things.
-
4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
How old is the Earth?
Theologians have estimated from the events in the Bible that it is possibly six thousand years old. I think they get that from a timeline of events recorded in the Bible.
-
If you think about it, it makes sense that when the earth was created, everything had an apparent age even though it was just created.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
And fossils of plants and such in these coal beds are what exactly?
Fossils must have been created as well at the time of creation. I found some fossils long ago.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
So coal was created by Yahweh already in that form of carbon? Not as living plants first?
That makes sense. According to scientists, doesn't it take millions of years to convert plants into coal? So the coal you see today must have been created with the earth.
Why Trust the Bible?
in Religion & Politics
Posted
OK. Here is a link for the website for Professor Philip Stott that I am talking about. He is a different person than the one you looked at. I saw the picture of your man and he is not the one.
http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/stott-intro.htm