It is our place, however, to tell you what is plausible and what is not.
Listen please... I have conceded this thread for three primary reasons.
1. I cannot refute anything you're saying with any scientific knowledge of my own. You may well be right!
2. My attempts to derail you are riddled with impatience and pride of my own! This is not helping with more important matters, and I needed my butt kicked like this to understand. I'm not very happy about it either. But I reluctantly concede it all.
3. My fallback position is more pleasing to me on this issue, though not nearly as
intellectually stimulating as the possibility of light's varying speed. It would have been a delight to my flesh, to be able to prove something like that.
I do not feel it is my place to tell you what is plausible, because to do so, I would have to claim 'total' knowledge of all possible things: Omniscience! I think what you mean is that it is your place to say what is reasonable.
I have insisted on nothing other than the fact that we do not know! I only did some very shallow research, and offered what I thought may be an answer to the question of this thread. As it turns out, it is not generally accepted in the 'science' community and was only new to me. That is fine, but I am not one for the convention.
It is interesting that many scientists will accept science's convention, but dismiss morality as convention.
It may be two hundred years after our deaths, before the latest discovery completely reassembles the scientific landscape.
The assumption that we know so much is prideful...
I cannot persuade you within your space. Your the man!
Bottom line... If Christianity is true, this is not the avenue for
me to pursue proclaiming it's most excellent news.
But I appriciate the moderators giving me the opportunity to make an ass of myself in front of many who have no intention of believing anything. It is clear to me where their loyalties lie. Some things you just can't prove, and others you don't have to.
Rob
™ Version 4.2