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

[FishFace]

An example that had a ball fall down. Wow, that really relates to the universe of the far past. Maybe you could add some math for how blocks are stacked??

I was trying to teach you how we can use one letter in maths to represent many different values, depending on other variables. Am I to take it that you still don't understand this?

If you don't know the speed of the light in D, or even have any clear observations of core to light action for literally years, how is it you calculate squat, precisely?

We can calculate that constant because it does not depend on the speed of light at all - it depends only on the time delay and the angular size. We then multiply it by c - whatever that was.
It doesn't matter how long it took before we checked through a telescope for it - all that matters is that the time delay was observed.

Well, the outer rings were not even known,and the inner ones only seen with clarity years later. You better focus here, pronto.

"[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."
http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml

http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml
[/FONT]
So what? A few years later, we check on the supernova and find that, every time the supernova lights up, the ring lights up severral months later. That's enough to calculate the number which we multiply by c. The number, by the way, is about 167 973 years.

And I have no reason to question them, do you??

We have sent space craft there, and landed them. Do you really think the light from there to here is some mystery? Get a grip, man. This is the sort of nonsense you represent??? Pathetic.

I have no reason to question that the speed of light from SN1987A was ever different from 3 million metres per second! What relevance do spacecraft we sent out years ago have to the light that leaves the sun today? Did they ever measure the distance? If they did, would that mean that the light today still has to behave the same?

Get a grip, dad - you need to do much better than that. I don't think you can even prove that the light from your own headlamps travels at what we think is the speed of light!

 

[Danyc]

You see, dad, Fishface is simply trying to show you how absurd it is to just assume that the speed of light could ever be different. If it is possible for it to be different (which you have no evidence of) Why can the speed of light coming from the sun to pluto not be the same as the light coming from the sun to earth? You seem to be perfectly fine with the idea that the speed of light can change; well, why can it not be different here?

In fact, why can we not just say that the speed of light is going every which way at different speeds all across the universe?

You have as much reason not to believe this as we have not to believe what you're saying.

 

[SimplyNothing]

This thread makes me laugh.

I assume this was in support of YEC, and stars being seen because the speed of light was faster?

I also assume he presented no evidence, and is now rejecting your guys' theories as well.

I haven't even read the thread yet.

Am I right about any of this?

 

[dad]

This thread makes me laugh.

I assume this was in support of YEC, and stars being seen because the speed of light was faster?

No. It is about a different universe, such as the new heavens will be, radically different. The idea is that there also was a different universe state in the past,so the laws of physics do not apply. People have been asked to show that they know by science the state of the past universe, and have admitted that is impossible. Therefore there is no reason to doubt that it was different, as the bible seems to indicate.

I also assume he presented no evidence, and is now rejecting your guys' theories as well.

It was not my ideas that were the science case, but the science case that needed to defend it's position, and claims. I already know it can't, either for a same or a different past state, so the only possible honest outcome is for people to admit that it really is beyond science.

I haven't even read the thread yet.

Am I right about any of this?

No, but, considering the amount of research that went into the post, that should be no surprise.

 

[dad]

You see, dad, Fishface is simply trying to show you how absurd it is to just assume that the speed of light could ever be different.

Not the speed, the nature. Speed is only one aspect. Add to that the nature of the universe itself, that light travels through. Trying to suggest some change in the present light speed itself, as pointed out betimes, is nonsense.

If it is possible for it to be different (which you have no evidence of) Why can the speed of light coming from the sun to pluto not be the same as the light coming from the sun to earth?

Because science does have some reach. Don't get rid of the baby, with the so called science bathwater.

You seem to be perfectly fine with the idea that the speed of light can change; well, why can it not be different here?

It is not, as pointed out the speed of our light that changed. It is the universe itself, and light itself. Our present light is the result of that change, no change IN our light is predicted. (to any great extent)

In fact, why can we not just say that the speed of light is going every which way at different speeds all across the universe?

I ask the same question for the new heavens. If the created state universe is in sync with the will of God then, why would it be necessary to have one uniform speed for light?
As for the universe we have here, we have assumed it is homogeneous. That means all the same state. I assume that the reason people on this forum haven't made a real effort to show that much, is because there are not any real experts here, on the topic, at the moment. A simple google search turned up some items, such as the blinking light of certain types of stars. They figure that it is impossible for light to have been much faster , or the star woulld explode, or some such. So there are reasons that people think they know. Of course, when we look at it, whether it can stand up, is another question. For example, forever state matter has vastly different properties than PO matter. Therefore, the same rules would not apply anyhow. Also, there is the question of how far away things really are. But I am not going to debate myself on that issue, even if the competition is weak.

You have as much reason not to believe this as we have not to believe what you're saying.

Whatever you believe, if you call it science, and, (for a Lutheran), strangely seem to want to oppose the bible account, you need solid evidence, and observation, testing, and support.

 

[dad]

I was trying to teach you how we can use one letter in maths to represent many different values, depending on other variables. Am I to take it that you still don't understand this?

It is the other variables of a created state, spiritual also universe that is the issue here. Not how fast a ball in a preschool falls off the table.

We can calculate that constant because it does not depend on the speed of light at all - it depends only on the time delay and the angular size.

Speaking of time delay, can you explain the 2 or 3 year gap from the 'tiny unresolved blob of gas', to the first Hubble pictures? What did you know, the day after it happened, about it's angular size, and time delay of the outer rings? Even the inner ring??
I mean, Hubble goes up after the fact, and finds all the rings. (at least the outer ones). Then, after the fact, we hear a claim the rings had to have been there 20,000 years already!!!! Some news! Then, they model the dickens out of all possible PO scenarios six million ways from Sunday, to try to figure out why there are 3 rings, and it is still a mystery!

We then multiply it by c - whatever that was.

And assume that the hazy little blob sent light out to the outer ring on day 1? Can you support that? Then, is there any cross check at all that the core to ring light, back in 1987, actually went in the core to ring direction in the tiny blob? If you can do all that, then, what cross check for the speed it went, do we have, besides the time the inner ring lit up?? So far, on that point, the answer seems to be none at all.
Now, if you got past all that, you still need a same state universe there, where all light is bound to present state C speed. Otherwise, how would we reign in line D, in any accurate way, to measure distance?
The whole standard model seems like a paper tiger to me! It may be time for a new look at the far universe, without burdening our view with PO preconceptions.

It doesn't matter how long it took before we checked through a telescope for it - all that matters is that the time delay was observed.

Well, if that time delay was 3 years after the actual event, how would we know that the same thing applied to it, as what we saw years later? You haven't really supported your claims along the way to form a cohesive case.

So what? A few years later, we check on the supernova and find that, every time the supernova lights up, the ring lights up severral months later.

Ah, OK, now we are getting down to it. Can you support that, precisely? Let's have a look at what we do see years after the fact here.

That's enough to calculate the number which we multiply by c. The number, by the way, is about 167 973 years.

Well, no, it is not enough, you have several more steps to make that a valid argument, rather than a mere PO past assumption, as outlined above.

I have no reason to question that the speed of light from SN1987A was ever different from 3 million metres per second!

I have no reason to accept it was the same yet. Especially if the whole universe changed before the light from the event got here. The only real question left, is whether it is still different up there, or the same!!!!!! Not whether the past event has to be held to present state laws, that we know is unknown to science already!

What relevance do spacecraft we sent out years ago have to the light that leaves the sun today? Did they ever measure the distance? If they did, would that mean that the light today still has to behave the same?

Science, well within the limits it swims in, is a real, and valuable thing. I really have no reason at all to question actual nearby observations, by science. I simply have to step in when they get carried away, and start telling fibs and fables about the far past, or future, and make stuff up. Of course.

 

[NailsII]

Nothing makes that logical. Are you suggesting that so many cultures have some sort of flood legends because everyone jet setted around the globe, and chewed the fat?

Some sharing of myths is inevitable as people travelled, you ony have to see the similarities between Gilgamesh and the biblical flood to see that.
More likely, several independant local floods are quite likely. This explains why the native Americans have a flood legend.

No, but you may as well say a giant Q tip came down, and dried the waters as well. And you go directly against the bible, because it clearly says that the flood killed all animals and men on earth, save those on the ark. It also says they were in there over a year. Why make stuff up??

A year, not 100 or so days - i stand corrected.
But the bibe does not say that plants died - so your point is mute. Straight from the horses mouth.
So who is making things up?

Well, the cranial nerve seems connected to the rest alright to me. Don't see any loose wires, or nerves hanging out the ears, or sticking through the knee. No reason to get down and salaam to evolution at all.

I didn't say it wasn't connected, it is just the path is takes to make those connections.
In simple organisms (like fish) it is much more direct; ours is diverted quite consideraby. If there is a designer, he is grossly incompetant as fish and reptiles are much better designed than we are.

Random mutations, from a randomly appearing little freak side show lifeform, are responsible for this???

If we are the freak show lifeform then yes. But random mutations are only part of the picture, it is the fuel that powers the engine. Natural selection is the driver, and no intelligence is required.

I see. Let me compare the two, ans see if you have anything there.

Facial patterns are very similar, morpholigical traits likewise.
When you look at the DNA, in particluar the redundant strands of non-coding or 'damaged' genes then the picture is striking.
The same can be said for the biochemistry, the organs and brain structure.
How typical that you should look at the most basic elements which show the only major difference outside of the brain itself.

Can't really say I agree with your assessment.

Then look in more detail.
Or, make a list of differences and similarities.

Maybe because they find the patterns of things from the present abilities to adapt, of that little part of creation?

Maybe not. If we were created, we should not share so many characteristics with all life.

Long as it bases itself on the created trait of evolution, why wouldn't it???

But it doesn't - there is no god required for evolution to work.
One major sticking point of creation is time - you don't have enough to explain anything.

Maybe. What about that do you think needs explaining?

If we were created, why does our sense of smell stink yet we have the genes in place to match our mammilian cousins?
Simple answer, we evolved tri-colour vision and our sense of smell does not need to be as good because we can see better.
Funny how we see this in many primates as well.

That you are hung up on apes something fierce? I think that couldn't be more apparent. That apes have some similarity in the eyes really doesn't matter. The best you could hope for is some wicked pre flood men connection genetically. But that wouldn't take us to the pond, now would it?

But again, you needto show a mechanism by which genetic change occurs when someone sins.

I wonder as well, since I have no idea who you mean, or what you are talking about.

I realise this might be difficult for you to keep track of, you are taking on many arguments at once.
I mentioned G W Bush, warmonger and personal aide to god - so he claims.
He believes the jury is still out on evolution, yet he talked to god before invading Iraq.
One wonders why God didn't tell him where the WMD's were.

Boy, you got it bad. They just don't seem to turn me on.

Now you're just being silly.
We are a sperate species, and cross breeding is not viable.

No more than assuming that the converse is true. It wasn't my idea anyhow. I hear people talk. One example is here
"Several genes coding for key proteins involved in viral replication and morphogenesis as well as the major capsid protein of icosahedral virions are shared by many groups of RNA and DNA viruses but are missing in cellular life forms. On the basis of this key observation and the data on extensive genetic exchange between diverse viruses, we propose the concept of the ancient virus world. The virus world is construed as a distinct contingent of viral genes that continuously retained its identity throughout the entire history of life. Under this concept, the principal lineages of viruses and related selfish agents emerged from the primordial pool of primitive genetic elements, the ancestors of both cellular and viral genes."
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/29
While not sharing their opinion on the nature of the beginnings, I note that science seems to consider the possibility.

Of course viruses have evolved, but not so much that there method of transmission has altered significantly in the last 10 million years.
Your ignorance does not count as evidence. So learn about viral transmission, and try and prove some of the greatest minds in science wrong with your God-based logic.

What was the location?

200,000 different ones. Would you like a map?

They should teach pagan deduction? Do they teach anything else?

I don't understand how you justify using 'pagan' as an insult, and in any case such an approach is hardly pagan at all.

Is HIV genetic? I already linked the site that outlines homosexual "sex" as the main cause in one continent. What more could anyone ask for!!??

No, HIV is not genetic. It is a viral infection.
Besides, if your outline is true and homosexual sex is the biggest cause of HIV, then condom use would be a massive improvement.
But it's no just the 'go to hell if you use condoms' that causes damage, its the snide stories being distributed that implies that the virus can pass through the condom, making them useless. Untruths like that cause real damage.

Depends on the kind of sin. I already proved that some sin is a major cause. Done deal.

You have failed to prove anything, and conjecture will not support your argument.
So, if sin is a major cause of genetic change inhuman populations, will we see non-christian nations harouring an increased number of genetic illnesses or deformities - yes or no.

No, I think you will find your country worshiping as many other gods.

Largely irrelevant, unless they each worship an intervensionist god that can make changes to our lives.
As this is not possible, it is irrelevent.

They stand either with God, or against Him. He was not at the pond.

Funny how everything has to be black or white with you, never anything inbetween. Does this come from the old testament, where god is opposed to mixing virtually everything - from seeds in a field to fibres in your clothes?
And if god was not at the pond, he isn't our creator.

Theistic evolution, if not based on creation itself, as the bible tells it, is mere unbelief.

So if it ignores evidence it is a virue; if it tries to mix the two together it is wrong?

I see you are worried about peoples faith. If Darwin had so little faith, that he imagined that evolution negated creation, rather than supplemented it, it needed a shaking up.

I'm not worried about people's faith, or lack of it. I merely pointed out that the bible alone is enough to put people off religion.

I find that the life of Brian was more than enough to expose them as punks. Not something that I find worthwhile.

"Blessed are the cheesmakers".
Priceless. You don't know what you're missing.

All fish? Or a few that maybe needed to get around twixt land and water areas?

Rather than derail this thread any further, may I suggest we discuss fish in this thread:
http://christianforums.com/t6720282-fish-out-of-water.html

Well, the suggestion seems to be something to do with them and Noah's nakedness.

So, did the punishment fit the crime?

Well, no, I still see the pretty girl as very different from the ape.

I was referring to your cranial nerve again, not the general state of your mind.

 

[Danyc]

Dad, will you be happy and leave us alone if we admit that it is an assumption? Which it is, an assumption.

There, we admit, it is an assumption and science has no way of knowing if it is true or not.

Are you happy now? Will you stop posting this foolishness now?

 

[Danyc]

For example, forever state matter has vastly different properties than PO matter. Therefore, the same rules would not apply anyhow. Also, there is the question of how far away things really are. But I am not going to debate myself on that issue, even if the competition is weak.

What are these differences in properties from PO to forever-state (whatever that is) matter?

How is it different? Do you know?

Whatever you believe, if you call it science, and, (for a Lutheran), strangely seem to want to oppose the bible account, you need solid evidence, and observation, testing, and support.

Forget whatever I may be, and listen to what is said. I'm probably not going to a Lutheran or a Christian for much longer anyway.

 

[Chalnoth]

Dad, will you be happy and leave us alone if we admit that it is an assumption? Which it is, an assumption.

There, we admit, it is an assumption and science has no way of knowing if it is true or not.

Are you happy now? Will you stop posting this foolishness now?

That's just not true, though. We can see the past rather directly. Unless you want to resort to a deceiver deity that would embed not only an appearance of age, but also an appearance of history, there is really no way around the fact that the laws of nature have remained at least nearly constant for the past 13.7 billion years (give or take a couple hundred million years).

To give you an idea of the sort of thing we do to check and see if physical laws have changed over time, see this post by Steve Carlip:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html

This particular post relates to whether or not nuclear decay rates have changed over time, and we've done similar checks on all sorts of various physical constants. They are all constant to within at least a couple percent for as far back as we can see.

 

[NailsII]

You may think that God is mistaken when He calls the wisdom of this world foolishness, but, you do so without rhyme or reason.

On the contrary, i do so with good reason.
But it is the great psalm 14, so good it had to be repeated.
I refer you to our previous converstaion where i challanged the translation of that passage.

Your claims are based on an assumed state, that is not supportable by fact or science. So, I'll take God's word for it, thanks.

May I remind you that your claims are the ones not backed by science or facts, and to get around this you use the 'changing state' as a crutch. Well, more like a get-out-of-jail-free card really.
And you could take Marilyn Munroe's word for it for all I care, you're still wrong.

Using nothing to back up your foundational assumption is what is what is foolish, and the worst kind of circular argument, which required no logic whatsoever. No proof whatsoever. No science whatsoever. No common sense whatsoever, in stuffing the universe in a spark, and devising foolish fables to explain the beauty, and wonder, that all life is today.

Part of logic is not to make stuff up. Work on that. That is all you have done, and can do regarding the universe of the past, or the future.

I think we have our wires crossed here. I have followed the evidence and arrived at a logical conclusion; you have followed an ancient set of texts which have been attributed to an all-powerful entity and invented a change in state to cover the holes in the ancient stories.

We have the wherewithal to adapt. If we really needed hair, we could grow some. Some people apparently might find that a turn on.

We have already adapted by losing most of our hair.

You can call it fur all you like, that doesn't equate a baby with an animal. That simply demonstrates your outlook, world view, and preferred terms. When you go swimming, I guess you use your flippers to get around.

Vestigal fins actually.

So, you might prefer that men freeze?? Sounds like we are well built. The evidence mounts.

the point is that the reflex is useless because we don't have enough hair to trap air next to our skin!!!
Didn't you ever wonder why we need to wear clothes?

Hair and nails contine to grow after we die. Maybe you think that is a vestigial remnant from descending from ghouls, or carcases?

You have already been shown that this is wrong, yet you persist by trying to argue that every cell in the body doesn't die at the moment the heart beats for the last time.
If the cells in your hair folicles are alive for even an hour after death is medically confirmed, how far do you think they will grow?
As you have been shown, the appearance of growth is due to dehydration. You are wrong, admit it and move on.

Hair is useful.
" The hair on our heads isn't just there for looks. It keeps us warm by preserving heat. The hair in the nose, ears, and around the eyes protects these sensitive areas from dust and other small particles. Eyebrows and eyelashes protect eyes by decreasing the amount of light and particles that go into them. The fine hair that covers the body provides warmth and protects the skin. Hair also cushions the body against injury."
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/skin_hair_nails.html
In our past, we may have had more hair. There may be other reasons for such a reaction as goose bumps as well. For example, fear can cause them. Fear is a strong emotion. What emotions may have involved our skin area in the garden? Well, we don't really know. If, for example, we did have a spiritual also eternal body, and some sort of light covering, one assumes that we still had sex. Obviously. That involves emotions.

You started well, but blew it big time by coming over all spiritual.
Hair keeps our head warm, because we have lovely thick hair there (well, I used to)
Your body is a totally different matter.
But you are quite correct about the functionality of hair around our eyes and ears, indeed we have tiny hair-like projections in various places in our bodies, not just to trap particles but these cillia can beat and remove tiny items from internal tubes.

So, it could be some leftover from the reactions we had when the bodies were different.

So prove we had different bodies in this different state of yours. Anything, if not hard evidence then an idea would be nice.

Being left in a physical only body meant we were 'naked'. I notice God made us a fur coat Personally right about then. That means that that precise time may be the time when the change occurred. Assuming it was just more hair is a physical only flight of fancy.

Conjecture. Genesis mentions nothing about body hair.
[bible]genesis 3:21[/bible]
garments of skin, nothing to do with sprirituality or hair.

Only the hard copy. We had the record somewhere, even if just in heaven. There are records, and 'books' there, you know. BVut, unless evidence leads me elsewhere, I accept for the time being, that the ice age was after the flood. That means it does pre date the hard copy of the bible. No big deal, since we are talking thousands of years.

So where is the biblical reference to the ice age?

How did what pre date creation? If you mean the ice age, it didn't, of course.

No, it predated the bible. It couldn't predate creation, because we wern't created.

I guess as far as your temporal reality, and rotting, dying body and mind can tell, that might have some merit. For those not buried in the bowl totally, we realize there is and will be, and was more at work. The sort of more that present science can only lick it's little PO chops, and dream about.

Again, a need to feel special. Like having a little blanket, yor own personal special one.
Go right ahead and enjoy it.

No, they are mere animals, so fur is all they get. You don't seem to mind it.

But you're different, because you were created special, right?

Done. See above.

still waiting.....

Here we go again, you have no answer so you simply asert that science does qualify during bibical times as the world was the same somehow.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

This means what?? That when we fill a planet with water, you expect no water movement at all?

We?
You had a part in this as well?
you should have said earlier, it would have saved a lot of time.
Regarless, the burden of proof is most certainly with you on this one.
So prove that the entire world was flooded, as stated in genesis.

In no way, in fact, they are a forte. Only if the past was in this same present state would that be any problem. If you recall, you have no clue on that! All you have is a preference.

So explain how it was different - that is the whole point of this thread, after all.

Then keep building, you sure haven't got anything solid in that concept yet.

I agree that one line of research isn't enough to validate a claim. That is why science is a multi-disciplinary and self critical, so an informed decision can be made from an accumulation of evidence, as opposed to an accumulation of stories.

Really? So no one claims that this universe state will go on, and the sun and stars fizzle out? You don't pretend that present life processes always were the same, like the rates of evolution?

When this star fades, life will continue around another one.

Animals are not bound to man's laws. They are creatures that He made for us, and Himself. As the world is made new, and the heavens, animals also will be restored to perfection of the original design, apparently.

But they can have morals without a guide, and according to you they can get into heaven without the works of Christianity.
Starting to make me think that we may not be the special ones after all....

There was no such time on earth. That is why you will not show evidence that there was.

There was such a time, but no humans. No apes either.

That is a fable, that cannot stand the light of day.

Right, because light changes to suit your needs like......... fog to a landscape. Wonder where I've heard that before?

One can repent till the end, look at the thief on the cross. All men are wicked sinners. I could see how God might forgive some rash act of passion, as easily as a deliberate offending of His little one's faith, over time. Or even how some rash mistake might be better than killing millions of babies deliberately, in pre meditated murder. Etc.

So was that a yes or a no?
Can I live the life of an evil, wicked person and repent on my death bed and still enter heaven.

It is my opinion that the truly wicked would not dream of truly repenting even near death, if they happened to know when that was.

But they could.

Open physical eyes that have clear and present limitation, obviously. Eyes that seem so biased, and blinded, I might add, that they look on man as beasts, and can't really see a difference between a pretty woman, and an ape even. Sad.

Logical fallacy, and not even correct.
All eyes have a massive limitation, because your creator gave better vision to other, less-desrving animals.

Assigning some animal reproductive behavior to 'morals' is a strange tactic. One I doubt even you would honestly believe.

No stranger than applying morals to a deity, and thinking that without them we'd all be immoral.

Correction. YOU don't know. I do. Millions of us, that have come to Him know, just like the bible says we would. And, we know which God it is. Jesus.

so what colour is his skin then?
Does he still have scars?
What accent does he speak in?
More to the point, what's his favourite football team?

 

[FishFace]

It is the other variables of a created state, spiritual also universe that is the issue here. Not how fast a ball in a preschool falls off the table.

So? Anything that can be represented as a mathematical object can be used as a variable in a function, and everything can be represented as a mathematical object. It might be very complex, but for lots of things, the most complex object you need is just a number.

Speaking of time delay, can you explain the 2 or 3 year gap from the 'tiny unresolved blob of gas', to the first Hubble pictures?

Uh... we didn't have the telescope, so we couldn't use it to take pictures - you need me to explain that to you?
How does that affect the validity of the images captured once the telescope was up and running? You've still got the same 8 month time lag between the supernova brightening and the rings brightening, and that's all we need.

And assume that the hazy little blob sent light out to the outer ring on day 1? Can you support that? Then, is there any cross check at all that the core to ring light, back in 1987, actually went in the core to ring direction in the tiny blob? If you can do all that, then, what cross check for the speed it went, do we have, besides the time the inner ring lit up?? So far, on that point, the answer seems to be none at all.

The real answer is - who cares? We've got what we need, the 8 month gap which tells us that the distance of line D in km is 8 months * c in km/month

Well, if that time delay was 3 years after the actual event, how would we know that the same thing applied to it, as what we saw years later? You haven't really supported your claims along the way to form a cohesive case.

Well, first of all, it doesn't matter one bit - for all I care the supernova could've looked like kermit the frog while we weren't watching - we still have the same time delay.

Ah, OK, now we are getting down to it. Can you support that, precisely? Let's have a look at what we do see years after the fact here.

Well, no, it is not enough, you have several more steps to make that a valid argument, rather than a mere PO past assumption, as outlined above.

No, you haven't outlined anything to invalidate that. We know that it line D is 8 * c, using appropriate units. Using trig, we can calculate that the distance to the supernova is 167 973 * c. Please tell me what step goes wrong, and why.

I have no reason to accept it was the same yet.

Do you need a reason to accept it was the same? Why? Do you need a reason to accept that light from your headlights travels at the same speed as light in science labs? Why not?
How do you know?

You're full of nonsense.

Science, well within the limits it swims in, is a real, and valuable thing. I really have no reason at all to question actual nearby observations, by science.

What are those limits, and why are they limits? I don't believe they exist, and why should I? What's good for the goose is good for the gander - either we need a reason to believe light is travelling at the same speed or we don't.
In the first case, you don't know the speed of light from car headlights. In the second case, SN1987A is 168,000 light years away.

 

[Danyc]

That's just not true, though. We can see the past rather directly. Unless you want to resort to a deceiver deity that would embed not only an appearance of age, but also an appearance of history, there is really no way around the fact that the laws of nature have remained at least nearly constant for the past 13.7 billion years (give or take a couple hundred million years).

To give you an idea of the sort of thing we do to check and see if physical laws have changed over time, see this post by Steve Carlip:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html

This particular post relates to whether or not nuclear decay rates have changed over time, and we've done similar checks on all sorts of various physical constants. They are all constant to within at least a couple percent for as far back as we can see.

Shhh! I'm trying to get him to leave!

If we can win this argument without having to provide evidence, we won't have to go through the trouble of teaching science to a brick wall.

What you say is true, of course.

 

[dad]

On the contrary, i do so with good reason.
But it is the great psalm 14, so good it had to be repeated.
I refer you to our previous converstaion where i challanged the translation of that passage.

Well, the definition, from the Hebrew I look up is this.
" [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] [/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] foolish, senseless, fool[/FONT]

http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=05036

Plus, the spirit is required to understand the bible, and I, as a believer am telling you that you, as an atheist, are wrong. And I have heard it from a few men of God.

May I remind you that your claims are the ones not backed by science or facts, and to get around this you use the 'changing state' as a crutch.

You can try, but that won't help the fact that science does not have the capability to tell us the state of the future or past. You cannot get around any which way! I can get far above and beyond, not just around your lame duck PO science dead ends. No question.

Well, more like a get-out-of-jail-free card really.
And you could take Marilyn Munroe's word for it for all I care, you're still wrong.

She may have been blond a lot of her life, but I will still take her word over your ape!

I think we have our wires crossed here. I have followed the evidence and arrived at a logical conclusion; you have followed an ancient set of texts which have been attributed to an all-powerful entity and invented a change in state to cover the holes in the ancient stories.

We have the same evidence, and the same science. It does not go to infinity and beyond, I assure you. Ask around. It deals with the natural world.

We have already adapted by losing most of our hair.

From what, however, is the question.

Vestigal fins actually.

OK, so you swim with vestigial fins, good for you. Is that where you spawn as well?

the point is that the reflex is useless because we don't have enough hair to trap air next to our skin!!!

If we no longer have the spiritual light cover, I guess it would be useless. This is news???

Didn't you ever wonder why we need to wear clothes?

No. I did wonder why we couldn't fly, does that make me a bird??

You have already been shown that this is wrong, yet you persist by trying to argue that every cell in the body doesn't die at the moment the heart beats for the last time.
If the cells in your hair folicles are alive for even an hour after death is medically confirmed, how far do you think they will grow?

Who cares???? Point is they do. get over it. I win.

You started well, but blew it big time by coming over all spiritual.
Hair keeps our head warm, because we have lovely thick hair there (well, I used to)

Right, it is useful. Do goosebumps warm you up as well?

Your body is a totally different matter.
But you are quite correct about the functionality of hair around our eyes and ears, indeed we have tiny hair-like projections in various places in our bodies, not just to trap particles but these cillia can beat and remove tiny items from internal tubes.

Great, so we are well designed.

So prove we had different bodies in this different state of yours. Anything, if not hard evidence then an idea would be nice.

The new heavens are the closet thing to the garden of Eden in the bible. There, it makes it clear we can fly, live forever, never get sick, etc etc. I don't make this stuff up. If you want a nice demo in the historical times, we have that as well! Jesus was transfigured!!!
Matt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

What, you thought I made this stuff up??

Conjecture. Genesis mentions nothing about body hair.
[bible]genesis 3:21[/bible]

Right, so what is your point about it, then?? Do you think they both were bald??? Get serious.

garments of skin, nothing to do with sprirituality or hair.
So where is the biblical reference to the ice age?

We can't know whether the reason we never realized we were naked had something to do with our forever state former bodies. But that is an educated assumption. The ice age, if many are correct is much later. The flood is mentioned, and that is unfrozen ice! We also have the evidence of creatures adapted to the cold, and therefore can deduce that they had to get that way after the ark.

No, it predated the bible. It couldn't predate creation, because we wern't created.

Doesn't matter, God and others were here. They have records.
Joh 17:24 - Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Again, a need to feel special. Like having a little blanket, yor own personal special one.
Go right ahead and enjoy it.
But you're different, because you were created special, right?
still waiting.....

Ge 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. That does not allow for evolving from them!

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Really, so, do you have an argument?

We?
You had a part in this as well?
you should have said earlier, it would have saved a lot of time.

Yes, as in when it is done, not as in when you and me personally fill a planet with water.

Regarless, the burden of proof is most certainly with you on this one.
So prove that the entire world was flooded, as stated in genesis.
So explain how it was different - that is the whole point of this thread, after all.

I see no reason from any evidence to doubt God flooded the earth, at all.
The differences in the future and past I have discussed many times. Here is a link with a few of them.

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates

I agree that one line of research isn't enough to validate a claim. That is why science is a multi-disciplinary and self critical, so an informed decision can be made from an accumulation of evidence, as opposed to an accumulation of stories.

It has many disciplines, but all involve this temporal universe! All are limited just to the present natural. That's what it's all about.

When this star fades, life will continue around another one.

Meaningless prophesy, based on nothing.

But they can have morals without a guide, and according to you they can get into heaven without the works of Christianity.

Believing is the work of Christians.

There was such a time, but no humans. No apes either.

Back up your claim, let's have a look at what you got.

Right, because light changes to suit your needs like......... fog to a landscape. Wonder where I've heard that before?

Light in the new heavens is quite different. Don't blame me.

So was that a yes or a no?
Can I live the life of an evil, wicked person and repent on my death bed and still enter heaven.

I am not the judge. I simply try to take His word for it.

Joh 6:37 - All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

But they could.

All men are sinners. Your idea of wicked may not be God's. Your idea of righteousness may not be God's either.

Logical fallacy, and not even correct.
All eyes have a massive limitation, because your creator gave better vision to other, less-desrving animals.

How our eyes really are in the true forever state, I don't know. I suspect pretty darn good. But, you seem to admit your own limitations here. Remember that when making stuff up.

No stranger than applying morals to a deity, and thinking that without them we'd all be immoral.

God told us what is right or wrong, not us Him. Don't flatter yourself.

so what colour is his skin then?
Does he still have scars?
What accent does he speak in?
More to the point, what's his favourite football team?

I guess He doesn't like football. Neither do I. A bunch of men half killing each other, wasting time and money. Unless you mean soccer football. I suppose that can involve women. He speaks in a still small voice, and I suspect it is so clear, we'd think it was our best friend, or mother, not some mumbling stranger. Jesus likely does have scars, we saw them while they were still wounds healing. In the above verse I gave, He is so light, it didn't allow for skin color. Piece of cake.

 

[dad]

Some sharing of myths is inevitable as people travelled, you ony have to see the similarities between Gilgamesh and the biblical flood to see that.
More likely, several independant local floods are quite likely. This explains why the native Americans have a flood legend.

The fact that flood legends are worldwide suggests that word really spread. The fastest thing was maybe a horse. That takes time to spread things around.

A year, not 100 or so days - i stand corrected.
But the bibe does not say that plants died - so your point is mute. Straight from the horses mouth.

Well, can you show us land plants that live under water, that covered the whole earth, even the mountains? You must be kidding.

So who is making things up?
I didn't say it wasn't connected, it is just the path is takes to make those connections.
In simple organisms (like fish) it is much more direct; ours is diverted quite consideraby. If there is a designer, he is grossly incompetant as fish and reptiles are much better designed than we are.

He designed them as well. Give it another hundred years, maybe we will find out there was a reason for certain paths after all.

If we are the freak show lifeform then yes. But random mutations are only part of the picture, it is the fuel that powers the engine. Natural selection is the driver, and no intelligence is required.

Natural selection? What is it that you think that has done since Noah??!

Facial patterns are very similar, morpholigical traits likewise.
When you look at the DNA, in particluar the redundant strands of non-coding or 'damaged' genes then the picture is striking.
The same can be said for the biochemistry, the organs and brain structure.
How typical that you should look at the most basic elements which show the only major difference outside of the brain itself.
Then look in more detail.
Or, make a list of differences and similarities.
Maybe not. If we were created, we should not share so many characteristics with all life.

Facial patterns in the two pictures I gave look very different to me.

But it doesn't - there is no god required for evolution to work.
One major sticking point of creation is time - you don't have enough to explain anything.

Opinion based on ignorance. You have no idea whether God created us, hence, all the evolution since.

If we were created, why does our sense of smell stink yet we have the genes in place to match our mammilian cousins?

Maybe the world of sin is so smelly, God had mercy.

Simple answer, we evolved tri-colour vision and our sense of smell does not need to be as good because we can see better.
Funny how we see this in many primates as well.

We need to keep an eye on other wicked men, so again, thank goodness for eyes. Some of us keep an eye on the women as well, and I guess there are a few that look for apes.

But again, you needto show a mechanism by which genetic change occurs when someone sins.

No I don't. The example I gave was plenty. Sin affects men in a multitude of different ways.

I realise this might be difficult for you to keep track of, you are taking on many arguments at once.
I mentioned G W Bush, warmonger and personal aide to god - so he claims.
He believes the jury is still out on evolution, yet he talked to god before invading Iraq.
One wonders why God didn't tell him where the WMD's were.

OK, so you take the man at face value, rather than on actions. I don't. Neither do I have any idea that God wanted to start killing people there. As for WMDs, the man might look in his own country, and he wouldn't come up short handed.

Now you're just being silly.
We are a sperate species, and cross breeding is not viable.

I never said it IS. I said it may have been. Such is a different past.

Of course viruses have evolved, but not so much that there method of transmission has altered significantly in the last 10 million years.

Prove it.

Your ignorance does not count as evidence. So learn about viral transmission, and try and prove some of the greatest minds in science wrong with your God-based logic.

Viral transmission now is not the issue. It was long long ago. That is what needs to be looked at.

200,000 different ones. Would you like a map?

No, an example. With specifics. Target practice, basically.

I don't understand how you justify using 'pagan' as an insult, and in any case such an approach is hardly pagan at all.

It denotes a certain belief system, one that is not a majority in some places, yet is thrust upon people rudely.

No, HIV is not genetic. It is a viral infection.

It involves genes.
"
ENV

The envelope gene is also found in all retroviruses. It makes proteins for the envelope to the virus. In HIV, it has two parts. SU (surface envelope, gp120) and TM (transmembrane envelope, gp41). tat

The transactivator gene influences the function of genes some distance away. It controls transactivation of all HIV proteins. rev

The differential regulator of expression of virus protein genes. vif

The virus infectivity factor gene is required for infectivity as cell-free virus. nef

The negative regulator factor retards HIV replication. vpr

The virus protein R gene has an undetermined function. vpu

The virus protein U gene is required for efficient viral replication and release. It is found only in HIV-1. vpx

The virus protein X gene has an undetermined function. It is found only in HIV-2 and SIV."
http://www.righto.com/theories/hiv_genes.html

Besides, if your outline is true and homosexual sex is the biggest cause of HIV, then condom use would be a massive improvement.

Maybe toss in free hotel rooms, cab fares for multiple partners, and to the local public men's room??

But it's no just the 'go to hell if you use condoms' that causes damage, its the snide stories being distributed that implies that the virus can pass through the condom, making them useless. Untruths like that cause real damage.

Aiding and abetting the transmission of aids, by facilitating the chief cause hardly sounds like a solution to me.

So, if sin is a major cause of genetic change inhuman populations, will we see non-christian nations harouring an increased number of genetic illnesses or deformities - yes or no.

All nations, I think fall in that category. Sin is planet wide. How much it affected genetics here and there since the flood, who knows?

Funny how everything has to be black or white with you, never anything inbetween. Does this come from the old testament, where god is opposed to mixing virtually everything - from seeds in a field to fibres in your clothes?
And if god was not at the pond, he isn't our creator.

There was no pond. Sorry you love your myths that deeply.

So if it ignores evidence it is a virue; if it tries to mix the two together it is wrong?

There is no evidence to ignore for any evolving beyond Eden. None.

I'm not worried about people's faith, or lack of it. I merely pointed out that the bible alone is enough to put people off religion.

Then blame God. Funny millions find the opposite true. You need to consider there may be more to it.

"Blessed are the cheesmakers".
Priceless. You don't know what you're missing.

Yes, blasphemy. I don't mind missing that.

Rather than derail this thread any further, may I suggest we discuss fish in this thread:
http://christianforums.com/t6720282-fish-out-of-water.html

Well, this one is almost wrapped up, and, besides, I don't see enough merit to the cfoncept we came from fish to spend time on it.
http://christianforums.com/t6720282-fish-out-of-water.html

So, did the punishment fit the crime?

Why would I doubt God knew what He was doing??

 

[dad]

Dad, will you be happy and leave us alone if we admit that it is an assumption? Which it is, an assumption.

You already did. How would your admitted ignorance make me happy??

There, we admit, it is an assumption and science has no way of knowing if it is true or not.

So?

Are you happy now? Will you stop posting this foolishness now?

I think the wind is pretty much out of your sails here now.

 

[Danyc]

You already did. How would your admitted ignorance make me happy??

Then what the hell are you trying to prove here? What is your goal, if not to make us admit that we don't know? What do you want?

I think the wind is pretty much out of your sails here now.

Not really, I'm just heading in another direction. If we don't have to give you the evidence that we have for a same-state past, then it'll be much simpler. We won't have to try and pour water into a sealed receptacle.

 

[dad]

What are these differences in properties from PO to forever-state (whatever that is) matter?

How is it different? Do you know?



Forget whatever I may be, and listen to what is said. I'm probably not going to a Lutheran or a Christian for much longer anyway.

The difference is the spiritual. The forever state also has the spiritual, best as I can tell.
I think if your faith was grounded more in the savior, and not in creation theology, you might do better.

 

[dad]

That's just not true, though. We can see the past rather directly. ..

Thats what you thought, but you see just a myth.

To give you an idea of the sort of thing we do to check and see if physical laws have changed over time, see this post by Steve Carlip:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html

This particular post relates to whether or not nuclear decay rates have changed over time,

If there was no decay in a different state universe, no change in decay is expected. Physical laws are the change. No change in them is expected. Moot points.

 

[Chalnoth]

If there was no decay in a different state universe, no change in decay is expected. Physical laws are the change. No change in them is expected. Moot points.

If this were true, we would observe no decay beyond ~6,000 years. This is not the case. We observe nuclear decay going back some 4.6 billion years. You can't at the same time claim to say "no change" and "no decay before time X". The transition from no decay to decay is a change.