the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[dad]

The hourglass nebula has nothing to do with SN1987A - the HN is 8,000 light years away, and images of it were produced in 1995, not 1987.

If that was the hour glass in the link - as mentioned below, -We might ask why they mention it as the first item in a list of what happened with 1987!

("February 24, 1987: Sk-69 202 transforms itself into SN1987A. About 1057 ultraviolet and x-ray photons stream out from the inferno. A small fraction of this energy hits the near ring system, causing it to glow.

• The gas in the hourglass is not terribly dense, nor is it thick, so it glows feebly. The rings, however, are denser, and the glow is more pronounced. 50,000 parsecs away, we see three rings glowing with almost no trace of the hourglass nebula itself.")"

Another thing to consider is that Hubble was not in operation at the time, so it was 3 years or some such later, that the thing was seen.

" The origin and the nature of the beautiful circumstellar rings are still a mystery. They have been measured to expand rather slowly, "only" 70,000-100,000 miles per hour (this is considered slow because the supernova material in the center is expanding outward at speeds that are 100-2000 times higher!). Spectroscopic observations show that the rings are enriched in the element nitrogen. Both the slow speeds and the unusual composition show that the rings were expelled from the progenitor star when it was a red supergiant, more than 20,000 years before that star exploded as a supernova. However, one would have expected such a star to eject material in a more regular fashion, steadily expelling material in all directions, rather than puffing rings like a pipe smoker. Another puzzle is that the observations of the star just prior to the explosion show that it was a blue supergiant. This was a puzzle in 1987, because up to that time theorists had believed that only red supergiants could explode as a supernova. Apparently the star was, until relatively recently, indeed a red supergiant, but over the millennia before the explosion, it shrank in size and its surface heated up gradually."


http://heritage.stsci.edu/1999/04/sn1987anino.html

There are a lot of ifs!!The whole concocted explanation stinks to high heaven.

Once again, we should note that the fundamental assumption for the distance of the SN, even is based on assumed PO light speed.
"IUE measured the time interval between the supernova explosion and the time the inner ring brightened up to be 0.66 years. This means that the diameter of the ring is 1.32 light years. By comparing the angular and true sizes, we find the distance to SN 1987A (and thus to the Large Magellanic Cloud) to be 168,000 light years. This result is fundamental because it permits astronomers to calibrate the luminosity of the Cepheid variable stars in the LMC. Then, knowing how bright Cepheids are, we can measure the distances to many other galaxies, and thus measure the size, expansion rate, and age of the Universe."
(same link)
So, they base not only missing lines in the trig trianle that supposedly tells how far to this SN, but they use it all over God's universe!!! What a joke.
We might ask what may actually have happened in the few years before we got hubble to look at it, as well?
"[FONT=arial, helvetica] Ground-based images of SN1987A were only able to show a tiny unresolved blob of gas, so it was with anticipation that astronomers awaited the results from the Hubble Space Telescope, launched in April 1990. The first images of SN 1987A taken with the ESA Faint Object Camera on HST on August 23-24, 1990, resolved the inner circumstellar ring of the supernova"
http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml
It looks like what we actually, truly, saw for YEARS, was not the core or the ring, but a blob of silly gas.
[/FONT]

First we see the core light up. Then the ring lights up. The ring is centred on the star. This set of associations leads us to conclude that the core causes the ring to light up.

We do? Gee, are you sure what we didn't actually see was a hazy blob????

You still haven't told us what speeds or distances we out to try to work out the correct distance to the supernova, and how long it took light to traverse the distance.

Well, to tell you that we need to limit the light action in the SN vicinity to PO speeds, you need to limit the universe to being PO. I am really starting to wonder about your high fallutin, poorly based claims here. The more we dig, the more silly and fantastic your myth becomes.

We've done the work, and we haven't even assumed a constant speed of light. If you're not happy, get up and put some effort in.

No idea who the "we" is there. Science has apparently assumed that the mysterious, all important, missing trig line is determined by the PO speed of light. That we know that we assume, despite what you think we know. Face it, you know precious little, and of that, most keeps changing, cause you didn't really even know that!

 

[dad]

.
Burden of Proof

Who has to prove what to whom?

You do, to us all, pronto. If you claim anything based on a far past or future state of the universe. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air. And where's that??

The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts.

My best advice to you, then, is to stop making outrageous and wild silly claims and calling it part of science. I will claim what God says in the bible as true, and it really doesn't matter what you think about it. Proving that, or disproving it is so far beyond you, it is not an issue of any sort. What is an issue is you being held up to dry in the wind for any false claims you might make in the name of science.

You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one that they have always supported.

There ARE no experts in a same past state or future, in case you never noticed. Therefore your concept of convincing some so called majority is bogus.

Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim.

I am in the majority, I accept the spiritual as a part of the reality of the history of man. As for baseless phony claims in the name of science, the burden of proof lies with the mouthers of mundane myths .

Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists.

Is there a girl in that dream as well??

It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to evolutionists to defend evolution.

Done. get over it. The evolving happened, but it started at creation. Imagining it to some ridiculous level of a first life form in a moist crack, pond, or vent, is pure hooey.

The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did.

Which one?

The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts.

Evolving, and man's murders are facts. That does not bring any reality whatsoever to your wet pond dreams.

In other words, it is not enough to have evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Hey, you do not have evidence that I don't have. And I have no need to convince insiders of the fishbowl there is anything outside their conceited, confined, confused, and convoluted concepts.

 

[dad]

.
Burden of Proof

Who has to prove what to whom?

You do, to us all, pronto. If you claim anything based on a far past or future state of the universe. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air. And where's that??

The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts.

My best advice to you, then, is to stop making outrageous and wild silly claims and calling it part of science. I will claim what God says in the bible as true, and it really doesn't matter what you think about it. Proving that, or disproving it is so far beyond you, it is not an issue of any sort. What is an issue is you being held up to dry in the wind for any false claims you might make in the name of science.

You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one that they have always supported.

There ARE no experts in a same past state or future, in case you never noticed. Therefore your concept of convincing some so called majority is bogus.

Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim.

I am in the majority, I accept the spiritual as a part of the reality of the history of man. As for baseless phony claims in the name of science, the burden of proof lies with the mouthers of mundane myths .

Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists.

Is there a girl in that dream as well??

It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to evolutionists to defend evolution.

Done. get over it. The evolving happened, but it started at creation. Imagining it to some ridiculous level of a first life form in a moist crack, pond, or vent, is pure hooey.

The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did.

Which one?

The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts.

Evolving, and man's murders are facts. That does not bring any reality whatsoever to your wet pond dreams.

In other words, it is not enough to have evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Hey, you do not have evidence that I don't have. And I have no need to convince insiders of the fishbowl there is anything outside their conceited, confined, confused, and convoluted concepts.

 

[FTPolice]

I can sum up this thread for anyone who doesn't want to read 75 pages of people trying to argue with dad.

College kids: Hey look, here's tons of evidence to support my claim.

dad: *long draw off a spliff* How do you know, like, where you there mannnnnnnnnnn? Things could have been, like, different, dude. Whoa, dude, my hands...

 

[FTPolice]

The speed of light is assumed to be a fundamental physical constant and has now been assigned a defined value. How would we know if it was varying with time?
The very term fundamental physical constants invites two questions: are they fundamental and are they constant. The speed of light c is undoubtedly regarded as fundamental since it features prominently in our best physical theories concerning the nature of the physical universe. The non-trivial problem which arises when we try to answer the second question involves finding something of assured constancy against which we can measure any possible change in any fundamental `constant'. Because of this the most meaningful experiments must involve dimensionless constants such as the fine structure constant (α=μ0ce2/h∼1/137) or the ratio of rest masses of fundamental particles (e.g. mp/me). There is a growing body of laboratory based experiments which have set tighter and tighter limits on the rate of change of α with time.
References

• G. Musser, `Inconstant constants', Sci Am Nov. pp.13-4 1998
• Petley B W, `Clocking the fundamental physical constants', Physics World Vol. 1 pp23-4, 1994
• Prestage J D, Tjoelker R L & Maleki L, `Atomic clocks and variations of the fine structure constant', Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 74 pp. 3511-4, 1995
• Bradley E. Schaefer, `Severe Limits on Variations of the Speed of Light with Frequency' Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 82 pp. 4964-6 1999
• Antoinette Songaila & Lennox L. Cowie, `Astronomy: Fine-structure variable?' Nature Vol. 398 pp. 667-8, 1999
• J K. Webb, V V. Flambaum, C W. Churchill, M J. Drinkwater & J D. Barrow, `Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant' Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 82 pp. 884-7 1999
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6057.html

 

[dad]

The speed of light is assumed to be a fundamental physical constant and has now been assigned a defined value. How would we know if it was varying with time?

How would we know? Well, there are ways, believe it or not. Science can do that. You just need to accept that the speed and nature of light was constant, since it came to exist as such. Until and unless science comes up with some real reason to doubt it, I see no reason to.
Of course, by the same token, we have no clue how long that our light existed as such. Therein lies the unsurmountable death knell of unbiblical old ageism. Hear it ringing?? Better get used to it, it ain't going away.

The very term fundamental physical constants invites two questions: are they fundamental and are they constant. The speed of light c is undoubtedly regarded as fundamental since it features prominently in our best physical theories concerning the nature of the physical universe.

This invites another obvious question. That is, who cares what features prominently in man's theories, UNLESS it is solidly based in evidence, and fact, and reality??

The non-trivial problem which arises when we try to answer the second question involves finding something of assured constancy against which we can measure any possible change in any fundamental `constant'. Because of this the most meaningful experiments must involve dimensionless constants such as the fine structure constant (α=μ0ce2/h∼1/137) or the ratio of rest masses of fundamental particles (e.g. mp/me). There is a growing body of laboratory based experiments which have set tighter and tighter limits on the rate of change of α with time.

The fine structure constant is dependent wholly on the present state of the universe.
"The fine-structure constant or Sommerfeld fine-structure constant, usually denoted

, is the fundamental physical constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. It is a dimensionless quantity, and thus its numerical value is independent of the system of units used."

"electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules."
(wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

In other words, as I pointed out, the nature of light, and other things is assumed to be like the present state universe. Expanding the assumption beyond light, to other parts of this present state of things does not help your case at all.
It is more sensible to accept the biblical explanation that this universe is strictly temporary, and that another heavens is the eternal state. There is simply no conceivable way that PO science can tie the future and past to this present state universe. The nature and mandate of all science we have, is limited by design to this natural only, this physical, this temporary universe. While it may be a fine structure indeed, there is a far far finer structure that is the created, and eternal structure.
All your little speculations are within that fishbowl, that box, that coffin. That is certain.

Too bad more people didn't realize it, so they could stop being bullied by anti God temporary science, so called.

 

[Danyc]

You do, to us all, pronto. If you claim anything based on a far past or future state of the universe. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air. And where's that??

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, dad, because you are the minority in this situation. It is not up to us to defend the perfectly reasonable notion that the universe was always held the same physical laws. The notion that it has changed at one point is quite absurd, and therefore, you are the one whom the burden falls on. You need to prove it to us.

My best advice to you, then, is to stop making outrageous and wild silly claims and calling it part of science.

And what outrageous and silly claims might these be? The claims that the universe has always held the same physical laws? Right, that's completely absurd. Why on earth would the universe have been the same all this time?

I will claim what God says in the bible as true, and it really doesn't matter what you think about it.

Actually, it does matter. Because what I think, and what Thaum thinks, and what Fishface thinks, and what everybody in the world thinks, will change how well your idea is accepted.

Why don't you publish a paper on it, or teach in in a university classroom? You want your ideas known, correct? You want the truth out, I presume? So go out there and let people know about it. That way others may also have the pleasure of ridiculing you. You may become the next Galileo.

Proving that, or disproving it is so far beyond you, it is not an issue of any sort. What is an issue is you being held up to dry in the wind for any false claims you might make in the name of science.

These 'false claims' have not yet been proven by you to be false.

There ARE no experts in a same past state or future, in case you never noticed. Therefore your concept of convincing some so called majority is bogus.

And there ARE no experts on a different past or future state universe. Either way, the burden of proof is on you.

I am in the majority, I accept the spiritual as a part of the reality of the history of man.

That majority is not the one of which I refer to. The majority I refer to is comprised of much of the population that believe that there has never been a 'universe state change'. Many have never considered the idea. You, in your belief that there was some sort of change in the universe that affected even fundamental laws of physics, are in the minority right now, and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove it to us. All of us are already comfortably assuming that it never changed and never will. We have good reason to. That reason is, why would it have ever been different? We have no evidence that it was ever different. And we still do not have that evidence, unless you can provide it for us, and in doing so, you will prove your theory to us.

Get to work.

Is there a girl in that dream as well??

The dream is reality in this day and age. The burden of proof is on creationists.

Done. get over it. The evolving happened, but it started at creation. Imagining it to some ridiculous level of a first life form in a moist crack, pond, or vent, is pure hooey.

It is not at all ridiculous; it makes perfectly logical sense. It could easily happen. Your claim is like me saying that the sun couldn't exist: A giant ball of flame that is the equivalent size of 1,206,885 earths, with the gravitational force powerful enough to keep gigantic bodies that are over 3,500,000,000 miles away in orbit around it? Shhyeeahh, right.

Fortunately it makes perfect sense, and it is completely possible for such a thing to exist.

Hey, you do not have evidence that I don't have. And I have no need to convince insiders of the fishbowl there is anything outside their conceited, confined, confused, and convoluted concepts.

Then the truth, as you believe it to be, will die with you.
Terribly sad.

 

[NailsII]

I will claim what God says in the bible as true, and it really doesn't matter what you think about it.

[BIBLE]Leviticus 11:1[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Leviticus 11:9-12[/BIBLE]

Prawn sandwich, anyone?

 

[Danyc]

[bible]Leviticus 11:1[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 11:9-12[/bible]

Prawn sandwich, anyone?

Please and thank you!

 

[dad]

[bible]Leviticus 11:1[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 11:9-12[/bible]

Prawn sandwich, anyone?

Not me, thanks. Not unless I was pretty well starving, and even then, I would pray I had a stuffed up nose, so I didn't have to smell that garbage.
Anyhow, what about it? Do you have some issue with some foods God called clean in the old Testament???

 

[dad]

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, dad, because you are the minority in this situation.

Not at all. The one making the science claim bears that burden alone. As for your attempts at appeal to argumentum ad populum, you might try starting somewhere other than in the box of dyed in the wool groupies of the unobserved, untested, and unsupportable, that like to pretend they are associated with science!

It is not up to us to defend the perfectly reasonable notion that the universe was always held the same physical laws.

That is a foolish notion, that you can't support, whether you like it or not! It is a bible contrary pipe dream, that has no relation whatsoever to reasoned thought.

The notion that it has changed at one point is quite absurd, and therefore, you are the one whom the burden falls on. You need to prove it to us.

Your claim that the state of the universe is somehow forever fixed, and always has been is not grounded in the slightest fragment of fact! All that is at issue is your ill conceived, and delusional personal incredulity, that something else may have existed as the created universe state.

And what outrageous and silly claims might these be? The claims that the universe has always held the same physical laws? Right, that's completely absurd. Why on earth would the universe have been the same all this time?

No idea?? You tell us! Why would it have been?

Actually, it does matter. Because what I think, and what Thaum thinks, and what Fishface thinks, and what everybody in the world thinks, will change how well your idea is accepted.

Try worrying about your idea standing on it's own two feet, rather than how you think it might count, by virtue of adding it to other silly opinions that can't stand the light of day either!

Why don't you publish a paper on it, or teach in in a university classroom?

Why would you think that is where one would look, to find free thought, reason, and fact based lines of reason? I would just as soon check the local dump, for garbage pickers, as worry about what that silly little propaganda mill spits out!

You want your ideas known, correct? You want the truth out, I presume? So go out there and let people know about it. That way others may also have the pleasure of ridiculing you. You may become the next Galileo.

Thanks. But there are a lot of much smarter people that can run with the concept, than I. All I needed to do was get it out there.

These 'false claims' have not yet been proven by you to be false.

I will worry about that when you prove the same state future, or past to be true. That will be never, apparently.

And there ARE no experts on a different past or future state universe. Either way, the burden of proof is on you.

So, anyone speaking about the state of either the past, or the future, by your own admission, has no one who is expert on it!!! Thanks for that! That snuffs all the leading so called lights of so called science out, big time.
It also leaves, of course, the bible as the untouchable authority on the issue!

That majority is not the one of which I refer to. The majority I refer to is comprised of much of the population that believe that there has never been a 'universe state change'.

Really, now??? Can you prove a majority have ever even considered such a thing!!!??? Let alone come down one way or the other, on the metaphysical concept!!!? Gotcha.

Many have never considered the idea. You, in your belief that there was some sort of change in the universe that affected even fundamental laws of physics, are in the minority right now, and the burden of proof lies with you.

Well, no more a minority, as if that mattered a whit anyhow, than those that think we will see a new heavens one day!! Get a grip.

Prove it to us. All of us are already comfortably assuming that it never changed and never will. We have good reason to. That reason is, why would it have ever been different?

Wow!! What a reason!!!!!! You really nail er down there. What logic! 'Gosh, it seems the one way now, why would it not always just gosh darned be the same way'?

We have no evidence that it was ever different.

We have no evidence that it was always the same. In fact, the only book that authoritatively covers that time says exactly the opposite. That beats your hunch! And, since you ain't got no proof or science, I win.

And we still do not have that evidence, unless you can provide it for us, and in doing so, you will prove your theory to us.

Get to work.

The evidences we do have stem from our perspective here in the temporary state. Unless science can address that in a real way, it is ruled out as a player. Even a minor player! If science cannot enter in, and prove it one way or the other, you will have to leave it as unknown! That is your only honest option.
I, on the other sweet hand, can revel in some of the wonderful mysteries of eternity, with an absolute assurance, unfettered by the chains of mental conformity to the fishbowl.

The dream is reality in this day and age. The burden of proof is on creationists.

This day and age are a part of reality. But no more all of it, than last Thursday! Work on that. I would be truly embarrassed to embrace such a small world view!

It is not at all ridiculous; it makes perfectly logical sense.

A magically appearing first life form, in your fantasy land might somehow make sense to you. But it really is not needed, and Occam slices it away as excess baggage!

It could easily happen.

Delusion. You have exactly, precisely no knowledge at all of what you are talking about there. None.

Your claim is like me saying that the sun couldn't exist: A giant ball of flame that is the equivalent size of 1,206,885 earths, with the gravitational force powerful enough to keep gigantic bodies that are over 3,500,000,000 miles away in orbit around it? Shhyeeahh, right.

No, I say the sun did exist, and was created. I do not say it was stuffed in a tiny speck too small for the eye to see, as it weeped with laughter! (along with all the rest of the trillions of suns and galaxies in the universe, no less!)

Fortunately it makes perfect sense, and it is completely possible for such a thing to exist.

Apparently, in your head, that is the sad case.

Then the truth, as you believe it to be, will die with you.
Terribly sad.

He that believes in Jesus will never die. That is a very happy thing indeed. The truth is too big to fit in man's wisdom today. They can't even seem to get the bits of it in, that do fit in their fishbowl philosophies. That is all that is sad, that man chose to be deceived, and swallowed such a horrid little package of lies.

 

[dad]

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, dad, because you are the minority in this situation.

Not at all. The one making the science claim bears that burden alone. As for your attempts at appeal to argumentum ad populum, you might try starting somewhere other than in the box of dyed in the wool groupies of the unobserved, untested, and unsupportable, that like to pretend they are associated with science!

It is not up to us to defend the perfectly reasonable notion that the universe was always held the same physical laws.

That is a foolish notion, that you can't support, whether you like it or not! It is a bible contrary pipe dream, that has no relation whatsoever to reasoned thought.

The notion that it has changed at one point is quite absurd, and therefore, you are the one whom the burden falls on. You need to prove it to us.

Your claim that the state of the universe is somehow forever fixed, and always has been is not grounded in the slightest fragment of fact! All that is at issue is your ill conceived, and delusional personal incredulity, that something else may have existed as the created universe state.

And what outrageous and silly claims might these be? The claims that the universe has always held the same physical laws? Right, that's completely absurd. Why on earth would the universe have been the same all this time?

No idea?? You tell us! Why would it have been?

Actually, it does matter. Because what I think, and what Thaum thinks, and what Fishface thinks, and what everybody in the world thinks, will change how well your idea is accepted.

Try worrying about your idea standing on it's own two feet, rather than how you think it might count, by virtue of adding it to other silly opinions that can't stand the light of day either!

Why don't you publish a paper on it, or teach in in a university classroom?

Why would you think that is where one would look, to find free thought, and fact based lines of reason? I would just as soon check the local dump, for garbage pickers, as worry about what that silly little propaganda mill spits out!

You want your ideas known, correct? You want the truth out, I presume? So go out there and let people know about it. That way others may also have the pleasure of ridiculing you. You may become the next Galileo.

Thanks. But there are a lot of much smarter people that can run with the concept, than I. All I needed to do was get it out there.

These 'false claims' have not yet been proven by you to be false.

I will worry about that when you prove the same state future, or past to be true. That will be never, apparently.

And there ARE no experts on a different past or future state universe. Either way, the burden of proof is on you.

So, anyone speaking about the state of either the past, or the future, by your own admission, has no one who is expert on it!!! Thanks for that! That snuffs all the leading so called lights of so called science out, big time.
It also leaves, of course, the bible as the untouchable authority on the issue!

That majority is not the one of which I refer to. The majority I refer to is comprised of much of the population that believe that there has never been a 'universe state change'.

Really, now??? Can you prove a majority have ever even considered such a thing!!!??? Let alone come down one way or the other, on the metaphysical concept!!!? Gotcha.

Many have never considered the idea. You, in your belief that there was some sort of change in the universe that affected even fundamental laws of physics, are in the minority right now, and the burden of proof lies with you.

Well, no more a minority, as if that mattered a whit anyhow, than those that think we will see a new heavens one day!! Get a grip.

Prove it to us. All of us are already comfortably assuming that it never changed and never will. We have good reason to. That reason is, why would it have ever been different?

Wow!! What a reason!!!!!! You really nail er down there. What logic! 'Gosh, it seems the one way now, why would it not always just gosh darned be the same way'?

We have no evidence that it was ever different.

We have no evidence that it was always the same. In fact, the only book that authoritatively covers that time says exactly the opposite. That beats your hunch! And, since you ain't got no proof or science, I win.

And we still do not have that evidence, unless you can provide it for us, and in doing so, you will prove your theory to us.

Get to work.

The evidences we do have stem from our perspective here in the temporary state. Unless science can address that in a real way, it is ruled out as a player. Even a minor player! If science cannot enter in, and prove it one way or the other, you will have to leave it as unknown! That is your only honest option.
I, on the other sweet hand, can revel in some of the wonderful mysteries of eternity, with an absolute assurance, unfettered by the chains of mental conformity to the fishbowl.

The dream is reality in this day and age. The burden of proof is on creationists.

This day and age are a part of reality. But no more all of it, than last Thursday! Work on that. I would be truly embarrassed to embrace such a small world view!

It is not at all ridiculous; it makes perfectly logical sense.

A magically appearing first life form, in your fantasy land might somehow make sense to you. But it really is not needed, and Occam slices it away as excess baggage!

It could easily happen.

Delusion. You have exactly, precisely no knowledge at all of what you are talking about there. None.

Your claim is like me saying that the sun couldn't exist: A giant ball of flame that is the equivalent size of 1,206,885 earths, with the gravitational force powerful enough to keep gigantic bodies that are over 3,500,000,000 miles away in orbit around it? Shhyeeahh, right.

No, I say the sun did exist, and was created. I do not say it was stuffed in a tiny speck too small for the eye to see, as it weeped with laughter! (along with all the rest of the trillions of suns and galaxies in the universe, no less!)

Fortunately it makes perfect sense, and it is completely possible for such a thing to exist.

Apparently, in your head, that is the sad case.

Then the truth, as you believe it to be, will die with you.
Terribly sad.

He that believes in Jesus will never die. That is a very happy thing indeed. The truth is too big to fit in man's wisdom today. They can't even seem to get the bits of it in, that do fit in their fishbowl philosophies. That is all that is sad, that man chose to be deceived, and swallowed such a horrid little package of lies.

 

[FishFace]

[FONT=arial, helvetica][/FONT] We do? Gee, are you sure what we didn't actually see was a hazy blob????

Yup.

Well, to tell you that we need to limit the light action in the SN vicinity to PO speeds, you need to limit the universe to being PO.[/quotte]

Poor excuse for not being able to do the maths. Sorry - you lose.

No idea who the "we" is there. Science has apparently assumed that the mysterious, all important, missing trig line is determined by the PO speed of light. That we know that we assume, despite what you think we know. Face it, you know precious little, and of that, most keeps changing, cause you didn't really even know that!

Science did its work with the assumptions that have always worked. Science even did its work without those assumptions.

You claim that this work is still wrong, but can't explain how - you've been told how we don't assume the length of those lines, nor the speed of light along them. So now it's your turn - do the math, or get lost.

 

[dad]

Yup.

Not quite sure what you think that is supposed to mean, if anything, and doubt you do either. Apparently, you seem not to like the fact that the link pointed out that we could not see the sn up until a few years later, with clarity.
But you need more than sour grapes to win this one. Really.

Poor excuse for not being able to do the maths. Sorry - you lose.

I think I pointed out some time ago, that your maths simply cannot cover things that involved the spiritual. You can't get by even the very simplest of concepts, when I take it out of the fishbowl. Such as the concept of the possibility that light used to move at something other than a fixed rate for all the universe.
So, don't pretend to lay the 'maths' on us here, you were skunked on that already. You have no math for anything outside the fishbowl. Thanks for making that nice and clear, now.

Science did its work with the assumptions that have always worked. Science even did its work without those assumptions.

You have no authority to speak of always! Science is a new kid on the PO block. Infinity, and beyond, is simply, honestly, obviously way out of your depth.

You claim that this work is still wrong, but can't explain how - you've been told how we don't assume the length of those lines, nor the speed of light along them. So now it's your turn - do the math, or get lost.

Perhaps you really did miss something, and somehow think you have some sort of point.
The lines I think you refer to are the lines used to formulate a distance bt trigonometry, from earth, to the SN, right?

If not, do explain.
If so, then you have no choice but to admit that one of the lines is solely based on the time it took to see the ring light up. In other words, the assumed same light, nature, and speed. If you want to do fishbowl math on that imaginary line, you will need some evidence, other than a wish, and a prayer, and a hunch, and a belief, and an assumption.
In your case, you cannot get lost, since that is your starting point. Work on that.

 

[Danyc]

Apparently, in your head, that is the sad case.
He that believes in Jesus will never die.

Sorry, but you will die.

And if you do not get the truth out, who else will then lead with it? You seem to be in a supreme position to get the truth out; so go do it!

What on God's Green Earth are you doing on an internet discussion board, arguing such an idea, and idea that could very well rock the entire scientific community?

Go! Go tell everybody, and go convince them.

 

[Danyc]

Apparently, in your head, that is the sad case.
He that believes in Jesus will never die.

Sorry, but you will die.

And if you do not get the truth out, who else will then lead with it? You seem to be in a supreme position to get the truth out; so go do it!

What on God's Green Earth are you doing on an internet discussion board, arguing such an idea, and idea that could very well rock the entire scientific community?

Go! Go tell everybody, and go convince them.

 

[Danyc]

Alright guys, this is the case, right here:

Dad believes that the universe has changed in the past.

We do not.

Evidence for his side: The Bible (supposedly)

Evidence for our side: None.


That's right, we have no evidence that it was always the same. We simply accept that it was.



Darn, it seems that Dad has the one-up on us.

But now, Dad needs to prove the validity of his evidence. In other words, he needs to prove the Bible.

Sorry, can't prove the Bible. Which means neither of the sides have evidence for their beliefs about the state of the universe, meaning this discussion is completely pointless.

 

[dad]

Alright guys, this is the case, right here:

Dad believes that the universe has changed in the past.

We do not.

Evidence for his side: The Bible (supposedly)

Evidence for our side: None.


That's right, we have no evidence that it was always the same. We simply accept that it was.

Creationists, that is no joke, that is exactly where they stand, as this honest fellow admitted quite clearly here. The mental molestation of children in the education systems has no excuse whatsoever, but that they feel like doing it.
There is no reason WHATSOEVER to doubt God, and creation, exactly as recorded in the bible. None.
NO reason to doubt that we are in a temporary universe state, that will pass away. None.
No reason to believe that the flood, and the garden did not exist in a different state past. None.
What was admitted here, is that all the nay saying, and doubting is based on sweet nothing at all, but that they chose to believe something!
Something that stuffed the entire universe in a speck, by the way, and credits some magic act bacteria like speck of life with all the life on earth we see today, and that ever lived!

Darn, it seems that Dad has the one-up on us.

Indeed. I guess not believing you over God pays off in spades.

But now, Dad needs to prove the validity of his evidence. In other words, he needs to prove the Bible.

No, you can take it or leave it, wisdom is justified of her children. Those without need to come in, if they want the pearls, casting them out won't do no good.

.. Which means neither of the sides have evidence for their beliefs about the state of the universe, ...

Is that the way the bible slamming evolutionary pack o fairy tales was taught, and is taught in schools, and on TV, etc? No. They have pretended that they did have evidence, and that is the crime against humanity, and God. They lied, and continue to lie.
Justice will come one day. Meanwhile, have a good look here, at the wizard behind the evo curtain, that truly is a pathetic joke.


Isa 14: 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened[SIZE=-1][/SIZE] not the house of his prisoners?

And, I might add, is this his theory!!!??

 

[NailsII]

Anyhow, what about it? Do you have some issue with some foods God called clean in the old Testament???

No, just the stupid list of unclean ones.
I like crab, lobster, prawns and shrimps.
Pig too, I love ham and pork. Bacon sandwiches. Sausages. Lovely.
In fairness the whole book of Leviticus is just stupid.

Senseless deaths:
[bible]leviticus 10:1-2[/bible]
When was the last time you saw an insect with four legs?
[bible]leviticus 11:20[/bible]
Silly me, they must have evolved them in the last 3,000 years.

I'm suprised these poor sods ever found ANYTHING to eat:
[bible]leviticus 11:41-42[/bible]
leviticus 12 is just stupidity beyond stupidity. Ignorance of the highest level ever seen amonsgt humans.

And this must be a close second:[bible]leviticus 15:19-24[/bible]An issue is to menstruate by the way.

[bible]leviticus 18:18[/bible]But it's not OK when she's alive? Wow, that's sensitive.

Stupid rules:
[bible]leviticus 19:27-28[/bible]
God's intrusion into personal sexual activities:
[bible]leviticus 20:18[/bible]
Her sickness by the way, is menstruation.
I can't go on, I'm losing the will to live.....

 

[Danyc]

Creationists, that is no joke, that is exactly where they stand, as this honest fellow admitted quite clearly here. The mental molestation of children in the education systems has no excuse whatsoever, but that they feel like doing it.
There is no reason WHATSOEVER to doubt God, and creation, exactly as recorded in the bible. None.
NO reason to doubt that we are in a temporary universe state, that will pass away. None.
No reason to believe that the flood, and the garden did not exist in a different state past. None.
What was admitted here, is that all the nay saying, and doubting is based on sweet nothing at all, but that they chose to believe something!
Something that stuffed the entire universe in a speck, by the way, and credits some magic act bacteria like speck of life with all the life on earth we see today, and that ever lived!

I knew you would jump on that. I threw out the meat and you came down on it like a wolf. In your haste you've tripped and further shown how absurd your thought processes are.

Most unfortunately for you, Dad, the fact that we don't know if the universe ever changed has absolutely no bearing on evolution. It does not disprove evolution.

Dad, you're position is so shaky that this single notion brings it down:

I can turn everything you said around and it will be artillery against your position. How about I say that because you have no proof the the universe ever changed, just as we indeed have no proof that it was always the same, you too are molesting children's minds by teaching them 'truths' that have no factual basis, just as you believe we are teaching children 'truths' that have no factual basis?

Just as we have no proof, neither do you. This does not make either of our positions correct.

We will simply have to settle on: Neither of us know, and that's that.

In the meantime, we will continue to teach science, because it has bearing on the real world today.

We will also continue research onto how the universe was formed; you are severely misinformed if you believe that scientists simply accept that the Big Bang Theory is actually what happened. Of course they are still asking questions and thinking and hypothesizing. That is how we learn.

And in the process of progress in the sciences, we may very well come across evidence that does show what happened. We would rather do such a thing, and encourage others to also, than to say GODDIDIT and forget about it.