Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 948 (177044)
01-14-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by crashfrog
01-14-2005 3:44 PM


late bloomer?
quote:
I replicated your proceedure, to the letter, but was unable to duplicate your results. How do you explain this?
Well, hard to know if you are serious, or just trying to sound scientific. If you are serious, I assume you got saved as a youngster, but for whatever reason were repelled from the whole thing? There's a little thing called public education that specializes in blowing out the little flame that might be burning in some children, especially if kids may have little or no fire at home. But, I don't know enough about the experiment in question, to ascertain whether is is a delayed reaction, or damage, due to an attempted 'abortion', or whatever. Since God isn't a liar, and it is a known effective formula, though, I think you will come to your blossoming as time unfolds, perhaps some of us, for many things, will have to wait a while, beyond earth's years, to see clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2005 3:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2005 5:29 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 948 (177055)
01-14-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Loudmouth
01-14-2005 4:04 PM


who turned out the lights?
quote:
Every religion has stories of miracles, both present and past
Why, then, since it is even more overwhelmingly manifest than even I said in the post, maybe there is something to it?!
quote:
. So I guess this is concrete evidence that Pan exists, and by extension the Greek Pantheon of Gods?
Pan exists, and is a spirit entity, not a good one though. The Greek gods were based also, to some extent on real spirits.
quote:
..in the absence of objective evidence, that Genesis is literal fact
Objective? I am an object of sorts, and have evidence seen for many years, 6 ways from saturday. Jesus was an Object that rose from the dead. Must I consider that 1987a is long away, objectively, on the basis of light and how it behaves now? Must I consider objective what happened at the time of the big bang, when it was itsy bitsy, and went beyond the laws of physics, to where said laws break down? Must I follow you there to be objective? (or 'them' if 'you' doesn't fit here)
quote:
So you have scientific evidence that the light was something else?
One thread a while back talked about 'spiritual' light. Some others I have heard talk about some creation light that was around before the sun, and stars. Where is it now? If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on? Is there some 'fingerprint' we would look for? Would not I have to deopend largely on spoken or written record? We got that, you know, right back down to day 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Loudmouth, posted 01-14-2005 4:04 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Coragyps, posted 01-14-2005 5:02 PM simple has not replied
 Message 125 by Loudmouth, posted 01-14-2005 6:52 PM simple has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 123 of 948 (177061)
01-14-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by simple
01-14-2005 4:38 PM


Re: who turned out the lights?
The Greek gods were based also, to some extent on real spirits.
Off topic, I know, but I spewed coffee all over the screen at this one. Wow!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 4:38 PM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 948 (177067)
01-14-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by simple
01-14-2005 4:18 PM


If you are serious, I assume you got saved as a youngster, but for whatever reason were repelled from the whole thing?
How about instead of speculating on my religious life, you answer the question? Presume that I had an adult religious experience - was raised as an atheist, converted to Christianity as an adult, read and studied the Bible, etc. My subsequent religious experience is irrelevant because during the time I was a Christian I experienced absolutely none of the experiences you say that I should have.
Nor did I ever meet anyone who had, and I met a lot of Christians, and asked them.
Since God isn't a liar, and it is a known effective formula
No, it's not known to be effective. Of the hundreds of people who I've asked who have tried it, you're the only one with any "results" - results that can't be verified, repeated, or are even consistent with other reports of the supernatural.
Isn't the more reasonable explanation at this point that you're simply making it up? At what point can you cease to explain away a failure of others to detect these "supernatural" things as "late bloomers"? When do we conclude that a "late bloomer" will never bloom at all?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-14-2005 17:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 4:18 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 7:10 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 129 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-14-2005 11:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 948 (177103)
01-14-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by simple
01-14-2005 4:38 PM


Re: who turned out the lights?
Cosmos,
Well, that miracle and greek pantheon stuff is dragging us off-topic. If you don't think that other gods falsifies claims in the Bible then we can move on.
However, I remember watching David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty dissapear. Is that a miracle?
quote:
Objective? I am an object of sorts, and have evidence seen for many years, 6 ways from saturday.
Objective evidence, then, is evidence that we can both view in the same, exact way. Does any of that type of evidence support your claim that light is being changed?
quote:
Jesus was an Object that rose from the dead.
Just to help qualify what evidence I am looking for, what objective EVIDENCE supports this?
quote:
Must I consider that 1987a is long away, objectively, on the basis of light and how it behaves now? Must I consider objective what happened at the time of the big bang, when it was itsy bitsy, and went beyond the laws of physics, to where said laws break down? Must I follow you there to be objective? (or 'them' if 'you' doesn't fit here)
No, you must follow the evidence, not me. I am only the guide. You must explain how all of the objective data supports the claims made thus far, and how none of the objective data falsifies it.
quote:
One thread a while back talked about 'spiritual' light. Some others I have heard talk about some creation light that was around before the sun, and stars. Where is it now? If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on? Is there some 'fingerprint' we would look for? Would not I have to deopend largely on spoken or written record? We got that, you know, right back down to day 1.
As far as I know, Adam and Eve did not write Genesis nor did they witness the first 5 days of creation.
Secondly, all of the above is conjecture, is it not? For instance, you said "If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on?". Yes, how would you know? If you don't know, isn't it conjecture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 4:38 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 7:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 948 (177108)
01-14-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by crashfrog
01-14-2005 5:29 PM


better late than never
quote:
At what point can you cease to explain away a failure of others to detect these "supernatural" things as "late bloomers"? When do we conclude that a "late bloomer" will never bloom at all?
At no point. It isn't debatable that a world of healings, and miracles is a matter of experience. Now, if someone who was an atheist, asks Jesus into their heart, He comes. If she, or he never sees a miracle, never speaks in tongues, never gets a prophesy, never sees an angel, or anything else, fine, many don't, it isn't something like that. The main thing is that He does come, and will start to try to show them things, and take care of them. They now have everlasting life, so, obviously most of that will be in Heaven. I'm not too worried about them seeing something supernatural there. Nevertheless, millions do, perhaps some need some of these things a little more or something. But it says to know Him is to love Him. Now I could say, hey, I don't think I do much of that, but, apparently, like growing up, it is a process, not usually a flash. If our spirit is like our body a little, also, it need to get fed. If we drink in more water of the word, we will grow and blossom. If we don't, why, I think it may take a little longer.
So ".. I was a Christian I experienced absolutely none of the experiences you say that I should have." if you were a believer, He has your number, I never meant everyone would start walking on water before they read their first verse. I meant that all history is full of miracles, and if we get saved, we will begin the process of starting to have our eyes opened as well. For example, in many of Aimee Semple Macpherson's healings, there were doctor's there to confirm they really were miracles. This doesn't necessarily mean if I break my leg in a fight, I'll be outrunning the ambulance to the hospital if I become a believer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2005 5:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 1:56 AM simple has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 127 of 948 (177111)
01-14-2005 7:20 PM


Topic Drift Alert
Perhaps another thread should be opened for the philosophical/religious part of the discussion?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 948 (177119)
01-14-2005 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Loudmouth
01-14-2005 6:52 PM


Re: who turned out the lights?
quote:
As far as I know, Adam and Eve did not write Genesis nor did they witness the first 5 days of creation.
Well, I bet they were able to go back through time, and watch as it happened! I hope to do the same someday. But of course they missed the first creation days, since Adam wasn't made till was it day 6? Who wrote Genesis? Well, it's a little like who killed JFK? To me, it's more a question of who ordered it done? So whether Moses wrote it, you wrote it, or Noah's second oldest daughter, the main thing is, God takes responsibility.
quote:
, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on?". Yes, how would you know? If you don't know, isn't it conjecture?
My Friend was in charge of the light show! In some places, like Canada, some native court cases involve something called 'oral history'. It can actually come into a case as evidence, I believe. I guess you wouldn't like this too much?
quote:
I am only the guide. You must explain how all of the objective data supports the claims made thus far, and how none of the objective data falsifies it.
If we made like the universe, and expanded a little, maybe we could expand our idea of what is allowed as 'objective'.
quote:
what objective EVIDENCE supports this?
Even today, many christians do something they call "witnessing" an old habit whose beginnings were at the time of Jesus. You see there were so many eyewitnesses to it, they simply ran around and gave testimony as such. I guess some people regard cosmic ripples, more than eyewitnesses who swore even on death that they saw what they saw.
quote:
Objective evidence, then, is evidence that we can both view in the same, exact way
I can view light speed in 1987a's case as an indication of present distance, but not time millions of real years away, so I guess the concept is not objective since you don't view it the exact same way as millions of the rest of us!
quote:
If you don't think that other gods falsifies claims in the Bible then we can move on.
No many times other gods tried to come up to the challenge, such as Dagon, I think the name was. The ark of the covenant was temporarily taken by pagans. They stored it overnight in with their god dagon, who was found next day with it's hands cut off. They thought it was luck, so stuck it back in. Next day the head was cut off as well as the hands, and it was in a bowing position on the floor before God's ark. Remember also Elisha's contest with gods, where fire came down and burned his wet wood, but their gods couldn't even ignite super bone dry kindling, despite a night of chanting and self mutilation. Sure, we can move on, as far as having any of these old gods even attempt to falsify the one true God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Loudmouth, posted 01-14-2005 6:52 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 10:18 AM simple has replied

  
Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 948 (177166)
01-14-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by crashfrog
01-14-2005 5:29 PM


!!!!
quote:
Presume that I had an adult religious experience - was raised as an atheist, converted to Christianity as an adult, read and studied the Bible, etc. My subsequent religious experience is irrelevant because during the time I was a Christian I experienced absolutely none of the experiences you say that I should have.
Pardon me (honest), but I have to ask: Does that truly describe (or at least sort of) your experience with Christianity? If so, it kind of explains your approach toward my posts and others' posts. And, I'd like to engage you in another thread or format (I'm truly interested). But if not (say your experience or disapointment with God was only hypothetical), then I apologize and you can nevermind.
Sincerely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2005 5:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-14-2005 11:06 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 130 of 948 (177167)
01-14-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Juhrahnimo
01-14-2005 11:02 PM


Re: !!!!
Pardon me (honest), but I have to ask: Does that truly describe (or at least sort of)...
...anything to do with Supernova1987a?
Not to pick on only you Juhrahnimo, could EVERYONE here please stick to topic??

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-14-2005 11:02 PM Juhrahnimo has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 948 (177168)
01-14-2005 11:08 PM


OOO Topic Time
Both Admin AND the Queen have spoken. Time to get back to the supernova.

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 948 (177173)
01-15-2005 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Loudmouth
01-13-2005 12:08 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
The speed at which the pulsars spin is almost at a max. We know this because we know the size of these stars, the density of neutrons, the gravitational forces, and the nuclear forces involved in these stars. We could be wrong ---- ....The precision and strength of pulsar signals, back in the early days of astronomy, could not be exlained except through intelligent technology. However, as our understanding of atoms and astronomy increased, it became apparent that these signals were coming from high density stars with extremely short rotational periods
I see you said, "we could be wrong". Seems to me this bit here is a stretch. These 'nuclear forces' we 'know' about, gravitational forces,(Isn't the majority of the universe dark matter we don't understand, and doesn't this appear to have a gravitational effect?) the and even the certainty these pulsating things are composed 'mainly of neutrons'. Is it more that we are saying, because they behave this way, we think it must be stuffed with neutrinos. How can we be positive it is even 'rotation' that accounts for the pulses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 12:08 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2005 11:54 AM simple has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 948 (177188)
01-15-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by simple
01-14-2005 7:10 PM


If she, or he never sees a miracle, never speaks in tongues, never gets a prophesy, never sees an angel, or anything else, fine, many don't, it isn't something like that.
But that's not at all the impression you gave. You gave the impression that all we had to do was accept Jesus, or whatever, and our eyes would be opened to the supernatural.
But now you seem to be retreating from that assertion; now you seem to be asserting that we only get to view the supernatural if God determines we're special enough to; which begs the question "is it really our fault we can't take into account the supernatural factors if God has determined that we're not allowed to see them?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 7:10 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 2:13 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 140 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-15-2005 11:56 AM crashfrog has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 948 (177192)
01-15-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
01-15-2005 1:56 AM


One for all
quote:
You gave the impression that all we had to do was accept Jesus, or whatever, and our eyes would be opened to the supernatural.
Not instantly. And as you must know, the 3 musketeers all said back to something more scientific sounding, or else, so, unless you bounce over to the coffee shop or someplace, I can't get away with persuing that. But I think I pretty well covered it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 1:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 2:17 AM simple has not replied
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 01-15-2005 11:36 AM simple has not replied
 Message 144 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-15-2005 7:03 PM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 135 of 948 (177193)
01-15-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by simple
01-15-2005 2:13 AM


Not instantly.
Not, apparently, ever, for most people. Which gets back to my criticism. You blamed us for not seeing the supernatural factors, but it's God who decided we couldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 2:13 AM simple has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024