Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[sandwiches]

I see no spirit kings or spirits marrying people here. Something had to be different. I see no one living many centuries here. Something had to be different.

Something was different alright. I also don't see any dromedaries in my living. Something's go to be different compared to Egypt... the laws of physics, perchance?

 

[dad]

And how do you get from "something" to "the entire universe"?

Well, something on earth for starters. Since you don't know about the far universe anyhow ...how would it be an issue?

 

[dad]

Something was different alright. I also don't see any dromedaries in my living.

Camels still exist. So does beer and coffee. One lump or two?

 

[sandwiches]

Camels still exist. So does beer and coffee. One lump or two?

Sure but they don't exist here... So, I wonder what's different here from Egypt?


Anyways... we'll continue our cartoon show tomorrow.

Night!

 

[Tiberius]

Magical? Is that what you call all things that are not under your present state nose?

No, it';s what I call things that are made up when they have no evidence to support them, but are only held because they fit in with what you have already decided is true...

Lie. There is and was no same state past proof presented. Not here. Not anywhere. Ever..

Yes there was. Just because you disagree doesn't invalidate it.

False. What we see we do not know what caused.

Ye we do.

Example???? Name something you see!!!!???

radioactive decay! You've never been able to show why this is invalid! Every single claim you've made against it fails miserably because you can never explain why the different techniques produce results that agree!

 

[dad]

Sure but they don't exist here... So, I wonder what's different here from Egypt?


Anyways... we'll continue our cartoon show tomorrow.

Night!

Well, I would say that in the present, things are sort of more or less the same.

 

[dad]

No, it';s what I call things that are made up when they have no evidence to support them, but are only held because they fit in with what you have already decided is true...

The state of the far away universe is the issue here. And I see no evidence from you proving it is the same. All I have said is that I don't know. I do assume that the spiritual is a part of whatever stars are. That is a biblical observation. Well supported.

Yes there was. Just because you disagree doesn't invalidate it.

False. I exposed any offerings as biased and circular same state based to the core.

Ye we do.

Ne we don't.

radioactive decay! You've never been able to show why this is invalid!

Is is quite valid. Things decay. So?

Every single claim you've made against it fails miserably because you can never explain why the different techniques produce results that agree!

Get a grip, I have no claim against decay. I just point out that we do not know it took place in the past, as your lack of evidence validates.

 

[Tiberius]

The state of the far away universe is the issue here. And I see no evidence from you proving it is the same. All I have said is that I don't know. I do assume that the spiritual is a part of whatever stars are. That is a biblical observation. Well supported.

The evidence is this:

What we see in the distant universe fits perfectly if the laws of nature out there are the same as the laws of nature around Earth.

In other words, we can look at a distant star, and what we see of it matches perfectly with the ideas of nuclear fusion and such that we observe taking place in the sun.

If you are right, then what we see in the distant universe matches what we see in the local universe by an amazing coincidence. And this would lead to the position, "It's completely different, but amazingly looks exactly the same."

Do you really find that plausible? or do you have another explanation for why what we see in the distant universe corresponds so closely with what we see locally?

False. I exposed any offerings as biased and circular same state based to the core.

What you used waas your self-fulfilling delusion. Just because you've incorporated a way to say "Fraid not!" into your ideas doesn't make my position wrong.

Ne we don't.

Yes we do.

Is is quite valid. Things decay. So?

It's not just the fact that things decay. it's HOW they decay. The rate at which they decay. The fact that since we have different materials that decay at different rates, we can cross check them against each other, and they are in agreement. The fact that we also have non-radioactive dating techniques that can also be used for cross checking, and they are also in agreement.

This would simply not be possible if your position was correct.

Get a grip, I have no claim against decay. I just point out that we do not know it took place in the past, as your lack of evidence validates.

We have evidence in that we have rocks that show a decay of several million years.

If the process had only been operating for a few thousand years, how could we see so many rocks with millions of years of decay? And if it wasn't caused by actual decay, but something else that simply made it look like decay, how do you explain that rocks from the same layers always date to the same age, even if they come from different placces far away from each other? Is this another one of those amazing coincidences?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I see no spirit kings or spirits marrying people here. Something had to be different. I see no one living many centuries here. Something had to be different.

I see no Fairy Godmothers or talking cats wearing quality footwear. Starting to see a pattern, dad?

 

[dad]

I see no Fairy Godmothers or talking cats wearing quality footwear. Starting to see a pattern, dad?

Yes. Your posts are meaningless drivel.

 

[dad]

The evidence is this:

What we see in the distant universe fits perfectly if the laws of nature out there are the same as the laws of nature around Earth.

Get serious. Not only do you not know it is our nature, you don't even know it's far!

In other words, we can look at a distant star, and what we see of it matches perfectly with the ideas of nuclear fusion and such that we observe taking place in the sun.

No. Show us one and how it matches what!

If you are right, then what we see in the distant universe matches what we see in the local universe by an amazing coincidence. And this would lead to the position, "It's completely different, but amazingly looks exactly the same."

No, in your head it all matches. Try to say how, so we all can have a look.

It's not just the fact that things decay. it's HOW they decay. The rate at which they decay. The fact that since we have different materials that decay at different rates, we can cross check them against each other, and they are in agreement. The fact that we also have non-radioactive dating techniques that can also be used for cross checking, and they are also in agreement.

Nonsense. No cross check is done that isn't inbred. You merely look at the pattern, and bandy about old ages as if you made the pattern with them. No. Give an example of a cross check, and I'll put it in the cross hairs.

This would simply not be possible if your position was correct.

You are dreaming. That is why you stay vague.

We have evidence in that we have rocks that show a decay of several million years.

No. None. Show us!

If the process had only been operating for a few thousand years, how could we see so many rocks with millions of years of decay?

You don't. You embed age with belief only.

And if it wasn't caused by actual decay, but something else that simply made it look like decay, how do you explain that rocks from the same layers always date to the same age, even if they come from different placces far away from each other? Is this another one of those amazing coincidences?

Nonsense! Nothing had to decay to get daughter material, before it was daughter material. You just look at the stuff as if it all cam from decay.

 

[Tiberius]

Get serious. Not only do you not know it is our nature, you don't even know it's far!

Yes we do. Your ignorance does not invalidate it.

No. Show us one and how it matches what!

Without it, the HR diagram would not exist.

No, in your head it all matches. Try to say how, so we all can have a look.

Sprectral analysis of distant stars shows that they have certain elements inside them. Our knowledge of those elements on earth tells us that stars with those elements must behave in a certain way. Our analysis of those stars matches exactly.

Nonsense. No cross check is done that isn't inbred. You merely look at the pattern, and bandy about old ages as if you made the pattern with them. No. Give an example of a cross check, and I'll put it in the cross hairs.

I already have, many times. You merely dismiss it, and spout nonsensical vagueness as your only excuse. You've shown you are completely ignorant of this area of science. I'm not going to repeat myself.

You are dreaming. That is why you stay vague.

Wow. Pot calling the kettle black! You accuse ME of being vague, when your specific evidence that shows that that laws of the universe were different in the past is "history". Man, you are hypocritical.

No. None. Show us!

Here you go. Now, before you start handwaving this away, let me point out that you asked me to show you some rocks that have been dated to millions or billions of years old. I have just done so.

Now, it is up to you to explain how these rocks could show such ages if radioactive decay has only been occuring for a few thousand years.

You don't. You embed age with belief only.

My goodness. You really are desperate to discredit anything that disagrees with your view, aren't you?

Nonsense! Nothing had to decay to get daughter material, before it was daughter material. You just look at the stuff as if it all cam from decay.

This proves beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of radio dating.

 

[Mikecpking]

There is lots to suggest that they never existed.

Show one law of physics that never existed.

 

[dad]

Show one law of physics that never existed.

None of them have been proven to have been in effect have they? If there was a rapid separation of the continents, thermo dynamic was not here as we know it. No killing heat was produced.

 

[Split Rock]

None of them have been proven to have been in effect have they? If there was a rapid separation of the continents, thermo dynamic was not here as we know it. No killing heat was produced.

LOL. Instead of using that as an argument for a "different state" past. you should be using that for an argument against a rapid separation of the continents in the past!

 

[dad]

Yes we do.

We shall see.

Without it, the HR diagram would not exist.

" One peculiar characteristic of this form of the H-R diagram is that the temperatures are plotted from high temperature to low temperature, which aids in comparing this form of the H-R diagram with the observational form."

Hertzsprung–Russell diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making a plot of stars is easy. Now where your Waterloo comes in is in showing that the temperature really is high, and how much we have seen going to low! Let's see you really make a case for how you know the temperatures even?

Sprectral analysis of distant stars shows that they have certain elements inside them. Our knowledge of those elements on earth tells us that stars with those elements must behave in a certain way. Our analysis of those stars matches exactly.

Example of a way they behave you predict?? I would think that having a few elements around them could be interpreted in other ways, rather than 'evolution'!!

Wow. Pot calling the kettle black! You accuse ME of being vague, when your specific evidence that shows that that laws of the universe were different in the past is "history". Man, you are hypocritical.

No. I am tnot the one pretending to have the universe mapped out, and claiming precise things. Science does that. If you can't defend and discuss them, what are you going here?

Here you go. Now, before you start handwaving this away, let me point out that you asked me to show you some rocks that have been dated to millions or billions of years old. I have just done so.

So you offer a link. What do you want me to do? Have you proof of a same state past, so that the things we see in the rocks take on your same state past meaning? No. That means you got nothin.

Why try to mask it in a big link?

Now, it is up to you to explain how these rocks could show such ages if radioactive decay has only been occuring for a few thousand years.

OK. They show no ages. Easy. What in them did you think showed ages? Zircon? As above, we need to know what nature they were formed in.

My goodness. You really are desperate to discredit anything that disagrees with your view, aren't you?

No. Just aware that imposing beliefs is all you do and can do.

This proves beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of radio dating.

Name some aspect of it then, you should be able to get a fast win here if you are correct..

I must admit, you strike me as mostly talk so far.

 

[dad]

LOL. Instead of using that as an argument for a "different state" past. you should be using that for an argument against a rapid separation of the continents in the past!

I can't, because I can't prove any more than science can that our nature existed. So I look to the best record man has, the sacred history. It shows details like animals all being in one place at one time. That means that the separation came after, no? I am still here, so the killing heat never happened.

 

[Split Rock]

I can't, because I can't prove any more than science can that our nature existed. So I look to the best record man has, the sacred history. It shows details like animals all being in one place at one time. That means that the separation came after, no? I am still here, so the killing heat never happened.

The "sacred history" says nothing at all about a rapid separation of the continents.. and you would think that it would speak of that in some detail, wouldn't it have? Rather, Prophet dad says there was a rapid separation of the continents, and then claims it is what the "sacred history" says. Hubris and Blasphemy rolled into one package!

 

[Chalnoth]

In response to the title of the original post:
When we look out to the furthest reaches of our universe, we see the cosmic microwave background, which is uniform to one part in 100,000. That is extremely uniform. Furthermore, when we attempt to fit a universe which varies in distance from us, we find it doesn't fit our best data (e.g. the distributions of galaxies). So, our universe is highly homogeneous. This is an observational fact.

As for the actual original post, well, I won't even dignify that with a specific response, except to link to this pair of essays:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: October 2001
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006

 

[Mikecpking]

None of them have been proven to have been in effect have they? If there was a rapid separation of the continents, thermo dynamic was not here as we know it. No killing heat was produced.

There is no evidence for rapid continent separation. That is pure speculation on your part. There is eveidence that continents came together to form pangea before it broke upagain. How does that fit?