Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 181 of 948 (178630)
01-19-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by simple
01-19-2005 3:47 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
You can look forward to a future suggestion of mine that provided my calculations give a value larger than Einstein found (for effect of gravity on individuals)that Quantum ENTANGLEMENT might be voided by organs WITHIN organisms that develop adaptive thermal currents via hierarchic thermodynamic electricity MOVING heat sinks. At present this is only CRITICAL as I need to produce more as I see there ARE readers here whom KNOW what I have already said. Speculation now, hypothesis later I (always) sat LOL.y

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:47 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:45 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 948 (178632)
01-19-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by simple
01-19-2005 3:47 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
Yes. One gal in proverbs says she was there with Him.
Also Jesus who lived 2000 years ago was there. He actually was the One who created it. Yet He says His Father is greater than that! Can you imagine?
And why should I accept their claims without evidence?
quote:
Obviously, since science does not understand the supernatural, they could not be expected to prove something was supernatural.
More accurately, the supernatural has never been successfully used to accurately predict new findings in nature. Why is that?
quote:
At least they can confirm something happened, we don't need them to understand it. Some christian doctors would know what was going on.
And a Hindu doctor would have another opinion. A native american doctor would have yet another opinion. Why is that?
quote:
In cases of what seemed to be unanswered prayer, it was just answered in a way that was better, and different than they knew enough to ask!
So prayer is always answered, no matter what the outcome is? So how can you tell the difference between unanswered prayer and answered prayer if the outcomes are indistinguishable?
quote:
You can speculate, extrapolate but only God can create a universe. That is pure nonsense.
Isn't it speculation and extrapolation that God even exists?
And I never said that quantum fluctuations could produce a universe, only that the could be tested to see IF they could.
quote:
We can measure how long it would take, but not assume a pre split absence of infinitly faster stuff.
So then I could argue that the pre-split absence of infinitely faster stuff also causes mismeasurements of the Empire State Building. The ESB is actually 5,000 feet tall. Any other measurement is pure conjecture. Are you starting to see how foolish this is?
quote:
I consider, anyhow that the solar system is about as far as I really trust man's realm to be.
Why? Even the solar system is chocked full of evidence that the universe is old. The earth, in particular, fully supports a 4.5 billion year old solar system. The universe agrees with the evidence in our solar system. So why don't you trust the universe that you claim that God created?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:47 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:59 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 948 (178800)
01-20-2005 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by NosyNed
01-19-2005 10:35 AM


Re: 169,000 years equals no God?
I take it your point is about the christians who embrace long ages, and simply reinterpret the bible to appease science? Yes I am aware of those nice people. I think the pope is even now one! Proof, I guess he really isn't infallible, unless this evolution acceptance is I forget what they call it-basically doesn't count as being really a message from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 10:35 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 12:48 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 948 (178801)
01-20-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Brad McFall
01-19-2005 3:54 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
Ok Brad, we wait for your future suggestion. Watch out, though, I hear mixing it in a home lab can be dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 01-19-2005 3:54 PM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 185 of 948 (178803)
01-20-2005 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by simple
01-20-2005 12:44 AM


Re: 169,000 years equals no God?
I take it your point is about the christians who embrace long ages, and simply reinterpret the bible to appease science? Yes I am aware of those nice people. I think the pope is even now one! Proof, I guess he really isn't infallible, unless this evolution acceptance is I forget what they call it-basically doesn't count as being really a message from God.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I doesn't seem to answer the question:
"Who was the fool who taught you that if the world is old then there is no God? "
A follow on would be that you explain the logic of this.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 00:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:44 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:02 AM NosyNed has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 948 (178806)
01-20-2005 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Loudmouth
01-19-2005 4:02 PM


your witness, please!
quote:
The earth, in particular, fully supports a 4.5 billion year old solar system
Do you talk to the earth? Or are we just talking about how it appears to poor present science it is so terribly old? Man, with all the crap it's had to put up with since Adam and Eve, can you blame it? Even Bush is looking older these days!
quote:
So then I could argue that the pre-split absence of infinitely faster stuff also causes mismeasurements of the Empire State Building.
Could you really argue that? I dare you, even in jest.
quote:
Isn't it speculation and extrapolation that God even exists?
And I never said that quantum fluctuations could produce a universe, only that the could be tested to see IF they could
Well, Billions don't think so, any more than 911 was speculation. We read about it, and feel it's effects.
quote:
More accurately, the supernatural has never been successfully used to accurately predict new findings in nature
Not true. Elijah prayed for no rain, and got it. Joseph predicted a drought, or famine via a dream, and it came bang on cue. Hey, Noah predicted a flood!!!!
quote:
Yes. One gal in proverbs says she was there with Him.
Also Jesus who lived 2000 years ago was there. He actually was the One who created it. Yet He says His Father is greater than that! Can you imagine?
"And why should I accept their claims without evidence?"
No need to accept them, all you asked was did anyone ever see it, so I gave you God's own record, and named a few. After all, I don't accept science's universe in a speck sized quark gluon soup either. In this case also, you certainly have no witnesses, even 'just' in God's word!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 4:02 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Loudmouth, posted 01-20-2005 1:06 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 948 (178807)
01-20-2005 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by NosyNed
01-20-2005 12:48 AM


and yours?
Why, who was the fool who taught you something else? I just go by God's record, so I guess He's the guilty one. And yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 12:48 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 1:09 AM simple has replied

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


Message 188 of 948 (178809)
01-20-2005 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by simple
01-20-2005 1:02 AM


God's record
Why, who was the fool who taught you something else? I just go by God's record, so I guess He's the guilty one. And yours?
No one has taught me that a young earth or an old earth means no God. There are many who have come here who want to say that an old earth means not God. I don't see the logic and agree with the majority of believers that those who try to show that God doesn't exist if the world is old are fools.
God wrote only one record. It is the world around us. It's message is clear. It seems He disagrees with you.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 01:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:02 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:20 AM NosyNed has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 948 (178814)
01-20-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by NosyNed
01-20-2005 1:09 AM


grades are in
quote:
I don't see the logic and agree with the majority of believers that those who try to show that God doesn't exist if the world is old are fools.
This doesn't surprise me, but thanks for stating your position about who you think are fools. Fairly strong sentiments, and crass presentation, but, hey, b- for effort anyhow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 1:09 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 1:48 AM simple has not replied

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


Message 190 of 948 (178821)
01-20-2005 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by simple
01-20-2005 1:20 AM


Re: grades are in
Hey don't give me the credit, I'm just going with the majority of Christians on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:20 AM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 948 (178949)
01-20-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by simple
01-20-2005 12:59 AM


Re: your witness, please!
quote:
I wrote: So then I could argue that the pre-split absence of infinitely faster stuff also causes mismeasurements of the Empire State Building.
cosmo wrote: Could you really argue that? I dare you, even in jest.
Let's look back to your other posts about supernova 1987a. You claim that science is not considering the different speed of light before the split of the spiritual world. This is your argument, and yet you berate me when I use it. Who is the jester? If I can't use it for proposing a 5,000 foot tall Empire State Building, then how can you use the same argument for a young universe?
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-20-2005 13:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 2:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 948 (178960)
01-20-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Loudmouth
01-20-2005 1:06 PM


we need to convert
quote:
You claim that science is not considering the different speed of light before the split of the spiritual world. This is your argument
I could go with our light has always been the same. Never do I need, or expect it to change. Since it was made. If it was made as a replacement for something faster, and different, that can not exist in our plane, (spirit light), then I would need to know how fast the original could go. Before we traded the bmw in for a pinto. So, If I built the building using inches, and you come along with a new metric ruler, we need to convert! Doesn't mean your ruler is wrong, or the one used to measure the thing in the first place! Only thing that would confuse one, was if you didn't realize there were two correct ways to measure!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Loudmouth, posted 01-20-2005 1:06 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Loudmouth, posted 01-20-2005 4:34 PM simple has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 948 (178990)
01-20-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by simple
01-20-2005 2:16 PM


Re: we need to convert
quote:
I could go with our light has always been the same. Never do I need, or expect it to change. Since it was made. If it was made as a replacement for something faster, and different, that can not exist in our plane, (spirit light), then I would need to know how fast the original could go.
So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 2:16 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 8:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 948 (179093)
01-20-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Loudmouth
01-20-2005 4:34 PM


chose your ruler
quote:
So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?
What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever? It must be to fit the evidence, as best we can come up with. And, as we know, there is no way to prove otherwise. All we can do, in absence of that proof, is chose our theory. One that excitingly allows for a God of creation, and the bible's timetable, or one that pitifully does not, and yet tries to demand all believe, and that there is no other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Loudmouth, posted 01-20-2005 4:34 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by JonF, posted 01-20-2005 8:23 PM simple has replied
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 12:10 PM simple has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 195 of 948 (179097)
01-20-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by simple
01-20-2005 8:16 PM


Re: chose your ruler
The question was "So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?". Your reply doesn't even try to answer the question.
What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever?
We have no evidence that stars are made of neutrinos. We do measure what stars are made of using spectrophotometry. See What is a star's "spectrum"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 8:16 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 9:23 PM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024