I notice I was suspended, guess I missed it as I didn't post for a few days. I am suspending my posts here to punish you for awhile. Fraudulent biased mods will no longer receive responses from me either. Ha,
Just as Newtonian motion is still used to describe the supports required to build a bridge. Even though Relativity would be more precise... it would be irrelevantly-more-precise (more work, for no gain). If Newtonian motion tells us the bridge needs to have supports 5 feet wide, and Relativity tells us the bridge needs to have supports 4.999999999999 feet wide... it doesn't matter which theory we use because they both give the same, exact answer for the question we're looking for (5'1/16"? 5'0"? 4'15/16"? - both tell use to use a support that is 5'0".)
When the exactness-we-need is verified by all observations, it doesn't matter if there's something else we're missing or don't fully understand. We know we need that 5'0" support. We know how far away distant stars are. We know these things.
Try to stop patting your science on the back long enough to admit you do not know here.
We know the distance to stars as well as we know how thick a support beam for a bridge must be.
We may not know how thick a support beam must be to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... 0.00000000001 inches). But such a thing isn't necessary to know it needs to be 5'0".
We may not know how far away distant stars are to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... a few miles). But such a thing isn't necessary to know they are billions upon trillions of miles away.
When you say "you do not know here" it is not enough information. There are many, many things we don't know, in many places. What we need to identify is if the level-of-precision you're talking about is required in order to know the stars are far away from us.
If you could explain what, specifically, it is you think we "don't know" then we can look to see if it's relevant or not. Take your time to respond, these messages don't disappear, you don't have to reply as fast as possible. Do some thinking and try to put together a meaningful response with some content.
.....we see that objects can be quite small, and still have orbits due to gravity. ...
Indeed, relativity (space-time) explains the observations very well, with repeatability and high confidence. Meanwhile you still have not provided a different explanation than the current space-time relativity explanation for what we observe.
Then there is the question of what gravity may be like if time and space are different! Then there is the question of what atomic orbits may be like if fundamental forces start to be different...etc. The deeper we look at the issue the more we see you don't know.
What if invisible undetectable unicorns are not pink?
And as long as our current understanding of space-time relativity explains the observations we make there will continue to be no rational reason or cause to fantasize about other possibilities.
The deeper we've looked the more advanced our understanding has become, and this is a process that will continue. That we don't know all the fine details does not invalidate our current understanding.
As I understand it God defined a period of light as a day. He defined a dark period as a night. He further defined the evening of a light period and the morning following a dark period as a day. He left the rest up to mankind to figure out.
Well, there was the bits about new moons, and years too. If Adam lived 930 years or so, then one assumes a year was a thing that they were familiar with.
Would you not agree that their concept of "day" varies with latitude, and that at the north or south pole there would be massive contradictory anomalies between observed "days" there compared to observations at the equator? We can also throw in seasons, and note that the observations on when it is "summer" would also depend on latitude, with southern hemisphere observations being opposite to northern hemisphere observations?
If so, would you not agree with me that those "measurements" were rather crude approximations back then. Years, seasons, months and days. Certainly too crude to make scientific observations in the detail we can do today.
So our understanding of time is built on older systems with increasing accuracy\precision over time, with systems that explain observed anomalies (like day length), until we get to our current understanding (relativity, space-time). This is an ongoing process, so if you know of any aberrant observations, any anomalies, let us know. If you have a better explanation that covers these anomalies let us know. We await your scientific breakthrough concept.
Message 586: I notice I was suspended, guess I missed it as I didn't post for a few days. I am suspending my posts here to punish you for awhile. Fraudulent biased mods will no longer receive responses from me either. Ha,
Sounds more like conflict avoidance behavior, as is your refusal to offer any substantiation for your fantasy argument.
Meanwhile science will continue to use relativity space-time to explain the current observations.
Admin Message 588 Time Suspended 4 Weeks For indicating he wouldn't respect feedback from moderators.
Poke the dragon enough times it will wake up. Note that your suspension is not because you are a creationist, it is because you don't follow the simple guidelines of the forum. Note that during this debate two (2) people were also suspended that were not creationists. That shows a lack of bias.
... Fraudulent biased mods ...
And yet, curiously, you have not demonstrated that to be the case.