Absurdities of so called science

[AirPo]

It's ok... I didn't expect much. At least you seemed to have watched the first 60 seconds.... too bad you didn't watch or grasp the rest of it.

Good to see you making new stuff up though. You've gone from different-state past to non-existent-state past.

I told you, never underestimate the power of the .

 

[Jester4kicks]

No, I won't sit through a whole mickey mouse, third rate animation, without addressing the first points of the propaganda. If you defend and discuss that, we could move on. The strawman was raised by the chicken man that light didn't change. I explained our light was the same since the split, or state change, when it came to be (more or less). So, you need to prove there was no state change, and it was the same light. Otherwise we can look at our light AS the change. If you don't get it, ask. I also didn't like the duhh factor in the animated lunacy flick! The words come up, real large, something like..the universe is big..pause...real big. Duhh, ya think??

If that foolish flick is all you can offer, I will let the lurkers judge. It seems you can't discuss it in detail, and rationally.

Nope, not going to play along anymore, dad. I'm perfectly capable of discussing the flick... but since we have determined that no scientific explanation will ever satisfy you (1)... I'm not wasting my time.

The video does make a big claim in the beginning... one that you may not accept. However, if you watch the rest of the video, and understand how the science behind it works (he does a great job of explaining it), you'll see how the rest of the video confirms the first statements therein.

I'm not optimistic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, not going to play along anymore, dad. I'm perfectly capable of discussing the flick... but since we have determined that no scientific explanation will ever satisfy you (1)... I'm not wasting my time.

The video does make a big claim in the beginning... one that you may not accept. However, if you watch the rest of the video, and understand how the science behind it works (he does a great job of explaining it), you'll see how the rest of the video confirms the first statements therein.

I'm not optimistic.

Have you seen my refutation to that video?

It builds its whole premise on: big = old.

(And yes, I watched it in its entirety.)

 

[Jester4kicks]

Have you seen my refutation to that video?

It builds its whole premise on: big = old.

(And yes, I watched it in its entirety.)

As I see it, there are only two ways to possibly refute that video....

Either;

1) You believe the speed of light is not constant, or

2) You believe god created everything in such a way that it would specifically deceive man.

Neither option is particularly appealing.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I see it, there are only two ways to possibly refute that video....

Either;

1) You believe the speed of light is not constant, or

2) You believe god created everything in such a way that it would specifically deceive man.

Neither option is particularly appealing.

Oh, I think a mature Bible student can find something in between junk science and the devil, don't you?

 

[Chalnoth]

As I see it, there are only two ways to possibly refute that video....

Either;

1) You believe the speed of light is not constant, or

2) You believe god created everything in such a way that it would specifically deceive man.

Neither option is particularly appealing.

1) doesn't work, though, due to things like Supernova 1987A:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh, I think a mature Bible student can find something in between junk science and the devil, don't you?

So, you're going to claim that it wasn't your god, but rather the devil that made 99.99999999999% of the universe for the express purpose of deceiving us?

P.S. And no, I'm not exaggerating. Our galaxy makes up 0.000000001% of the visible galaxies. The part of our own galaxy that lies within 6000 light years is far less than 1% of our own galaxy, so adding two 9's to the above is being really, really generous.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you're going to claim that it wasn't your god, but rather the devil that made 99.99999999999% of the universe for the express purpose of deceiving us?

I said "in between" junk science and the devil.

Blaming God for deceiving us, when He detailed --- in Writing --- what He did, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how He did it, why He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were, is just plain blasphemy.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I said "in between" junk science and the devil.

Blaming God for deceiving us, when He detailed --- in Writing --- what He did, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how He did it, why He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were, is just plain blasphemy.

Ok... so if you don't think god purposefully created the universe in such a way as to deceive all of mankind.... how do you explain your objection to the big=old statement?

 

[AirPo]

Explaining one's objections can take a hike!

 

[Chalnoth]

I said "in between" junk science and the devil.

Blaming God for deceiving us, when He detailed --- in Writing --- what He did, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how He did it, why He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were, is just plain blasphemy.

Hey, we're not the ones saying that your god is deceiving us. We're just pointing out that that is a necessary conclusion of your beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok... so if you don't think god purposefully created the universe in such a way as to deceive all of mankind.... how do you explain your objection to the big=old statement?

I'll ask a second time --- did you see my refutation?

Obviously not --- so I'll go hunt it up.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I'll ask a second time --- did you see my refutation?

Obviously not --- so I'll go hunt it up.

I guess I didn't. Could you please link me to it?

 

[Jester4kicks]

I'll ask a second time --- did you see my refutation?

Obviously not --- so I'll go hunt it up.

I guess I didn't. Could you please link me to it?

Can anyone else hear the crickets?

 

[pgp_protector]

Can anyone else hear the crickets?

I didn't see them /thread yet.
Did they /site ???

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone else hear the crickets?

It's very difficult to find, since it is a video --- hang on.

If I can't find it, I may just retype it --- (this is ridiculous).

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone else hear the crickets?

Oh well, whatever --- I'll just refute it again --- in short form.

The video assumes big = old --- overlooking the fact that the universe was stretched to its current size w/i a moment of time.

A light year is a unit of distance, not time, and if distance increases w/o time, then his whole premise fails.

 

[MoonLancer]

A light year is a unit of distance, not time, and if distance increases w/o time, then his whole premise fails.

i don't follow. repeat with more detail.

also can you even show that what you propose is possible or are you dabbling in hypothetical?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

i don't follow. repeat with more detail.

also can you even show that what you propose is possible or are you dabbling in hypothetical?

Most of what AV espouses is hypothetical.

 

[Cabal]

Blaming God for deceiving us, when He detailed --- in Writing --- what He did, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how He did it, why He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were, is just plain blasphemy.

Given that all of your spiels spiral into ad-hocery and extraBiblicality, I'm calling fail on this one.

ETA: TE neatly avoids the deception/inadequate description problem too!