Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[sandwiches]

Yes -- God set this planet to spinning, before He created the sun.

Here's a question for you:

What color was the sun before the Fall?

"The Fall" and "God," eh? Well, on that note, forgive us if we take your claims about the universe with a saltshaker or two, then.

 

[Chalnoth]

Davian, what color do you think the sun was prior to 4003 BC?

In 4003BC, the Sun was more or less the same color it is now. It was, however, extremely slightly redder then, because the Sun has been gradually heating up over the last few billion years. The difference you could observe over a span of thousands of years, however, would require the most sensitive of instruments. Certainly by eye, it would have appeared the exact same temperature then as now. Heck, I'm not that confident that you could tell the difference by eye over a hundred million years.

 

[VehementiDominus]

I'll rephrase it then, since atheists can ask us about the Fall, but we can't ask them:

Davian, what color do you think the sun was prior to 4003 BC?

A yellow dwarf - same as it is now...

Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Tiberius]

I'll rephrase it then, since atheists can ask us about the Fall, but we can't ask them:

We ask you about stuff you believe in, so how about you ask us about stuff we accepot as true?

And whoever gets the most evidence to support their position wins!

 

[dad]

Dad, do you believe the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun?

Yes. That is the way of the present.

 

[dad]

I've explained countless times that we do know it is the same.

Sorry you missed the wind being knocked of of that bag. Decay requires our present state. Decay does not prove our state existed beyond where it is known to have existed.

You say that there is radioactive decay today, yes? Well, we understand the process, and we are able to determine how long that process of decay has been going on for.

False. You merely choose to assume that all the (now) daughter material got here by decay.

I;ve given you links to examples of rocks that have millions of years of decay. And you have NEVER been able to explain how these rocks can show millions of years of decay when the process has been going on for a few thousand years.

They do not show old ages. They show a presence of materials, which you assume got here by decay. That isn't known. All that is known is that daughter materials are now repeat NOW produced by decay. Not sure what you are missing.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were the one who dictated proper debate procedure. Although I'm not surprised that you have a different view of it, as you don't seem to think that you need to provide any evidence to support your view.

My view is that the state in the past is not known by science. That is supported to the hilt. You are part of that demo.

I simply present evidence that supports my position. if you take exception to it because I didn't write it myself, that's not my problem. The evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't matter who wrote it.

I see none in this post? Or anywhere else, except maybe some spammed links, that you don't seem to comprehend enough to squeeze a point out of!

Behaviour of distant stars. Their temperature when viewed in conjunction with their elemental make up matches precisely what we would expect.

They are not that distant, most likely or big. Now, without distance or size, or a knowledge of the state of space, praytell, how do you think you can determine temperature!!??

(That means that we can look at a spectroscope of a star to figure out what elements are inside it, and figure out how hot it should be. Then we can measure it's temperature, and the temperature we get is exactly what we expected it to be.)

Nope! Strip away the many belief based assumptions, and you are left with a naked lack of knowledge.

I'm sorry, did I mention dark matter at all?

I thought you would be too embarrassed to! It is bogus.

Did God tell you this personally, or did you read it in the Bible?

Same dif.

Branch Davidians, Heaven's Temple, Solar temple... These are just three examples of a group of people who chose to kill themselves because they had flawed and incorrect belioefs that they genuinely thought were true.

I am hoping same state believers will react more reasonably to the news that they actually do not know.

And I can have a reason to doubt it. I can compare what the scriptual record says with reality. Now, if scripture and reality disagree, then one of them must be wrong. And, considering that it would be quite reasonable to assume that reality is, well, real, that would lead to the conclusion that if reality and scripture disagree, then it is scripture that is wrong.

Vague nonsense. The bible is the epitome of reality, and no reality can or does oppose it.

Considering that we change days far more often than we change years, isn't that a bit backwards?

No. The years all point to Jesus, BC, or AD.
besides, what about the other kinds of calendar out there?

I'm sorry, I thought that was stones left on top of one another, which you said was impossible. In any case, all buildings collapse sooner or later.

The temple did not collapse. It was ripped apart. Roman soldiers.

Sure, I could look it up, but I'd have no way to verify what I look up, would I?

I suppose we would have no way to verify you really looked anything up either. Guess we just have to look at what you say on it's own merits.

Then please show me ten of these written eye witness accounts.

Name ten books of the New Testament. That was easy.

 

[dad]

In 4003BC, the Sun was more or less the same color it is now. It was, however, extremely slightly redder then, because the Sun has been gradually heating up over the last few billion years. The difference you could observe over a span of thousands of years, however, would require the most sensitive of instruments. Certainly by eye, it would have appeared the exact same temperature then as now. Heck, I'm not that confident that you could tell the difference by eye over a hundred million years.

Story telling.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Story telling.

How is anything you say any different? You've provided even less evidence.

 

[dad]

Bullcorn. You claim the distant past and deep space have different laws than here on Earth, in the present. So, put up them apples and show us the evidence for your claims, tiger.

Actually space is unknown. The past was different, that is pretty well a given.

You see there are a few levels of space, as we might loosely call it. There is the atmosphere, or heavens. Where the birds fly, etc. That is one heaven. Then there is the expanse where the stars and sun and moon are. That is another. Then there is the third heavens, where God lives!

So I guess the question for us here is the second heavens. I think that science does not know what space is far away in the second heavens. We do have some knowledge of space close to earth. The question becomes...what are stars? Are they mere physical bodies, like the planets and sun (we assume) here in our system? Or...are they more!? Have they some additional components and materials we are not yet aware of? In what way is there the known spiritual connection? Is it secondary, sort of by proxy, from the third heavens, or is it direct? Are the stars composed of spiritual and physical materials, and under different laws? Many things we do not know.

Far be it from me to pretend I do. That has been the act of so called science.

 

[dad]

How is anything you say any different? You've provided even less evidence.

I do not claim that billions of years ago anything happened in the universe. That is different. I do not claim a whole insane scenario based on things we do not know, and time we do not know, and laws and space and etc etc we do not know, and call it known science. That is fraud.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I do not claim that billions of years ago anything happened in the universe. That is different. I do not claim a whole insane scenario based on things we do not know, and time we do not know, and laws and space and etc etc we do not know, and call it known science. That is fraud.

Yes you do. You call it the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is fraudulent?

 

[William_0]

I believe that giant invisible walruses created the universe. Anyone care to give evidence against that belief? I also believe that god gave instruction to write the Bible as a joke to punk christians. I would like evidence against this please. That's right, you can't disprove it.

 

[Davian]

Yes -- God set this planet to spinning, before He created the sun.

Are you Dad? Dad knows, since I had to educate him on the subject, that I am an ignostic atheist, and that your answer is nonsense. Until shown otherwise, "God" is just a character in a book. Movies too.

Here's a question for you:

What color was the sun before the Fall?

The movie or the bible story?

 

[Davian]

Yes. That is the way of the present.

Can you prove that to me? With all of your experience debating and discussing astronomy, you shouldn't even have to google it.

I would appreciate it if everyone would let dad take a run at it.

Unless AV wants to get his other foot into his mouth.

 

[dad]

Yes you do. You call it the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is fraudulent?

Who called the bible known science?? Get a grip.

 

[dad]

Can you prove that to me? With all of your experience debating and discussing astronomy, you shouldn't even have to google it.

I would appreciate it if everyone would let dad take a run at it.

Unless AV wants to get his other foot into his mouth.

I do not see how the earth revolving around the sun needs 'proving'. So, have you really no point?

 

[dad]

I believe that giant invisible walruses created the universe. Anyone care to give evidence against that belief? I also believe that god gave instruction to write the Bible as a joke to punk christians. I would like evidence against this please. That's right, you can't disprove it.

So you thought someone made a call for beliefs on who created stuff?? No.

 

[dad]

A yellow dwarf - same as it is now...

Why wouldn't it be?

Inventing names like a dwarf for our sun seems hardly appropriate. It does seem pretty big. As for what color the sky was before it was in our nature, who would know? Why would anyone want to pretend they knew stuff that they did not?

 

[Tiberius]

Sorry you missed the wind being knocked of of that bag. Decay requires our present state. Decay does not prove our state existed beyond where it is known to have existed.

If we have something that has been decaying for a million years, then it does prove that the state required for decay has existed for a million years.

False. You merely choose to assume that all the (now) daughter material got here by decay.

No, I accept that it got there by decay because any other explanation is flawed.

They do not show old ages. They show a presence of materials, which you assume got here by decay. That isn't known. All that is known is that daughter materials are now repeat NOW produced by decay. Not sure what you are missing.

You have an alternative explanation for how they got there?

My view is that the state in the past is not known by science. That is supported to the hilt. You are part of that demo.

Your view is wrong.

I see none in this post? Or anywhere else, except maybe some spammed links, that you don't seem to comprehend enough to squeeze a point out of!

This word spam that you use... I do not think it means what you think it means.

They are not that distant, most likely or big. Now, without distance or size, or a knowledge of the state of space, praytell, how do you think you can determine temperature!!??

First you will tell me what makes you thinkl that the stars are not far away, hot or big.

I'm not going to play with your idea until you give me a good reason to.

Nope! Strip away the many belief based assumptions, and you are left with a naked lack of knowledge.

My goodness, does your understanding of science actually get worse?

I thought you would be too embarrassed to! It is bogus.

So the fact that I didn';t mention something means that it is wrong? My goodness...

Same dif.

Well, the Bible is just a book. How do you verify it? I mean, at least if God told you personally, you could claim you heard it directly from god's mouth. And it's not like God has a problem with appearing to people. he did it all the time in the bible...

I am hoping same state believers will react more reasonably to the news that they actually do not know.

This does not follow at all from what I said.

Vague nonsense. The bible is the epitome of reality, and no reality can or does oppose it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but reality does oppose the Bible.

No. The years all point to Jesus, BC, or AD.
besides, what about the other kinds of calendar out there?

The fact that a commonly believed deity's birth was used as a basis for the counting of years in no way indicates that the deity actually existed.

And what about that Mayan calendar or whatever that opredicts the end of the world next year?

The temple did not collapse. It was ripped apart. Roman soldiers.

Whatever. the prochecy said there would not be a stone on another stone, according to you. And yet, the wall contains many stones that are on many other stones.

I suppose we would have no way to verify you really looked anything up either. Guess we just have to look at what you say on it's own merits.

Let me ask you a question...

If you have a source that makes a claim, do you think it's a good idea to go and find something else that also makes the same claim?

For example, if Joe says that Andy stole the car, is it a good idea to see if there's anything that supports the idea that Andy stole the car? Such as Andy's DNA in the car?

Name ten books of the New Testament. That was easy.

According to the Wiki article, the first texts of the New Testament were written about 50AD. Kind of a long time for eyewitnesses to wait, yeah? How old were they when they wrote their accounts? And after 50 years, how do you know their memories were accurate?

 

[sandwiches]

Actually space is unknown. The past was different, that is pretty well a given.

A given? A given on what grounds?