What is so terrible about message 187??????????????or 131?????
Let's look at mssg 187:
It only looks like it is billions of years old because of the assumptions you and others have made. Don't blame God for that.
That deserves a jeer because we have made post after post showing that these are not assumptions but conclusions based on evidence (e.g. SN1987a). You have refused to engage that evidence at all. You ignore it. That deserves a jeer.
The rocks do not necessarily record an earth that is billions of years old. Radiometric dating does that, but what if there is more to the story than what radiometric dating is telling us?
You are using Omphalism to avoid dealing with the evidence. This is where a supernatural deity makes rocks with a fake history in them, one that is indistinguishable from a real history. This deserves a jeer.
He did allow a system of thought to come along in the philosophies of men that created the intellectual environment were men deceived themselves mainly in the enlightenment.
A creationist who refuses to deal with the evidence telling us that we are deceived? Jeer.
Tell you what. Why don't you show us how the evidence is not consistent with an ancient universe. That would really help us understand where you are coming from.
Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
How do you know the value of c? You only know it because it is measured by its current value.
We also know its past value by observing cosmological bodies like SN1987a. Please try to keep up.
To me, the speed of light should be infinite in a true vacuum.
Then our Sun would explode since each fission reaction would produce an infinite amount of energy. I think you forgot about this equation: E=mc^2. That c at the end of the equation is the speed of light in a vacuum.
This is true, but what if the speed of light were dependent upon the zero point energy?
Evidence? If you want to claim that 100 years of physics done by hundreds of thousands of physicists is wrong you should at least attempt to supply some evidence to back your claims.
I do believe it is according to setterfield the last time I read him.
This doesn't solve any of the problems from his earlier work:
quote:Setterfield is here playing a semantic game: the ZPE increases the “magnitude” of the orbit energies, causing the actual energies to decrease! But if electrons are sustained in their orbits by the ZPE level, an increase in this level would obviously cause the electrons to gain orbital energy, and the atom to enlarge with time. This is a change in the wrong direction (if one wants to explain the cosmological redshift), and, incredibly, Setterfield has managed to revert to his earlier problem: claiming a redshift when the physics gives a blue shift. http://homepage.mac.com/...1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison3.pdf
Making the changes you propose would result in an observed blue shift for distant galaxies. We observe a red shift.
In summary: e=mc2 is not a problem with higher lightspeeds because the same reality that causes greater lightspeeds also causes lighter masses.
Lighter masses means that Earth atmosphere would not have oxygen:
quote:The problem occurs when we consider Setterfield’s hypothesis that mass varies . . .Unfortunately, this creates a severe problem for life on planet Earth. A molecule traveling upward with a velocity greater than the Earth’s escape velocity of 11,000 m/s will escape from the planet’s gravity, never to return. For oxygen, Figure 18 shows that the average velocity exceeds the escape velocity for æ values greater than 26. http://homepage.mac.com/...1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison3.pdf
No need to worry about a flood killing life on Earth. There was no oxygen to breath to start with, at least according to Setterfield's hypothesis.
So, you will not consider looking into a matter if there is no evidence?
As a juror in a murder case, would you consider leprechauns as the source of forensic evidence at a crime scene? Would you not accept forensic evidence as valid until the prosecution has ruled out the claim that leprechauns planted evidence at a crime scene? Yes or no?
The evidence is actually there. It is called the bible.
Those are claims, not evidence. Surely you understand the difference?
If you dug into the ground and came upon a stone that was dated to be 2 billion years old and on its was engraved the following message, would you not look into to the possibility that the claims made on the story had any basis in reality?
This is a fantasy, not evidence. The very fact that you can not point to such evidence is rather revealing, wouldn't you say?
If so, why aren't you interested in seeing if the claims of the bible have in basis in reality?
That is exactly what we are doing. As it turns out, the claims in the Bible are contradicted by reality.
The reason you should suppose that there ever was a change in constants is because a supernatural book written by the creator of the universe claims this world is much younger than what you all suppose it to be.
It is a book written by men.
You claim that the evidence shows it to be exactly as old as you claim. I am saying that maybe the evidence is all wrong. If the constants were ever different in the past, then the evidence would indeed be all wrong.
If constants were different in the past, the evidence would be DIFFERENT. It isn't. That's the whole point.
Now, can you see why you should give the idea of changing constants a serious consideration into possibly being true?
Can you see why the evidence contradicts changing constants in the past?
That is not what your posts are saying. In message 222 you said:
quote:No orbit in any galaxy is following the laws of physics, which is why they have invented four times as much invisible matter as the natural visible kind.
Last I checked, orbital speeds are given in distance/time. You are using a time dimension in your claims. You are contradicting yourself.
We can see much more distant galaxies whose atoms shine way down in the microwave and far infrared, but it takes a huge telescope to gather enough of that very faint light to clock the atomic frequencies.
Yes, this is due to space expanding between us and the distant galaxies. This is further evidenced by type Ia supernovae data where we can observe relativistic effects consistent with expansion.
Not only did the atoms keep on changing their clock frequencies, but the star orbits (inertia) . . .
How do you measure star orbits?
the space matter takes up (volume)
How do you measure volume?
There is not a shred of visible evidence for a single constant anywhere in the whole universe
Yes there is. We have presented it. Go read the posts concerning SN1987a.
I believe what I see which agrees perfectly with what the Bible states, especially about the visible creation as it happened long ago in the distant heavens.
You are using modern units for measuring the speed and volume of galaxies while complaining that we are using modern units when measuring SN1987a. It is a clear double standard, one that refutes your core argument.
You can't actually measure the speed of stars, or their volume or their distance without complete dependenc on an assumption of atomic perpetual motion.
You are using those assumptions when you claim that the orbital speed of stars in galaxies does not match predictions.
The history of galaxies is not about undetectable vacuum forces or invisible matter.
The evidence says otherwise. Dark matter is an observation, not an invention.
Dark matter is not undetectable. It is detectable, and scientists are able to map where dark matter is and its density.
No one has ever detected any space time or light being stretched as it transited through a void.
Yes, they have. Gravitational lensing is a very real observation, and yourself are measuring space time when you make claims about orbital speeds.
We observe in all parts of the spectrum how billions of galaxies VISIBLY grew from tiny naked globs to huge local growth spirals.
You have not backed this up with one iota of evidence.
The visible properties of all matter, not the symbolical undetectable mathematical notions about immutable atoms, continue to change relationally throughout cosmic history..
You have not backed this up either.
Not a single galaxy is following the laws of physics, because physics was contrived using the assumption the Bible predicted for the last days. How great will be the triumph of the Bible over western science.
How do you determine if a galaxy is following the laws of physics or not if you throw out time and space at the start?
Creationists may want to read the history behind the book "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot" by Phillipe Gosse, written in 1857. Yes, 1857. Keep that in mind. Omphalos is Greek for navel, and it is a reference to Adam having a navel.
In the book, Phillipe Gosse tried to deal with the mountains of geologic evidence that had been gathered over the previous 100 years which clearly indicated an ancient Earth. Mind you, this was in 1857, well before radiometric dating and well before astronomical evidence demonstrated a much more ancient Universe. The evidence was so overwhelmingingly in favor of an Old Earth in 1857 that Gosse didn't even attempt to argue against it. Instead, Gosse argued that the Earth was created with the appearance of age.
On its face, the argument does have some pull. For example, plants need mature soil that has a history of organic decay and bioturbation. Adam needed to be a mature adult in order to function in the Garden of Eden. However, this doesn't explain all of geology. What function do specific geologic layers, which show extreme age, play in the support of life? Well . . . none. Life would get along just fine without the Great Unconformity found in the Grand Canyon. Life would get along just fine without a correlation between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in rocks.
Function was Gosse's one and only basis for making this argument, and it fails spectacularly. Instead, Gosse makes God out to be a deceiver, a deity who puts a false history in the rocks for no other reason than to fake a history. As the Reverend Charles Kingsley put it:
quote:Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this — that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)
We can now add astronomy to the list of things God is trying to deceive us with. Creationists are now resurrecting Gosse's argument. They want to claim that God tweeked the laws of physics for no other reason than to make it look like there is a 13.7 billion year history for the universe. There is simply no functional reason that a deity would tweek the laws of physics in such a way.
To answer the accusations of bias, there is none. If the laws of physics were different in the past then we would be able to see those changes in distant stars. Those changes are NOT observed. The creationist response? The laws of physics were tweeked in such a way that all of the evidence is consistent with constant physical laws, even though it wasn't. It is a repeat of Omphalos. It is a repeat of creationists portraying God as a deceiver, a Loki of Universal proportions.