Real time or evo time?

[dad]

How about the Moon, dad? Who shall we trust -- science, or you?

God. What in tarnation does science know about what is in the center of the moon, or what the moon was like in the former nature??
The issue at hand is that man has been to the moon, and it is known now, what gravity and other things are like there. So deal with it. What you don't know is how it will be or was long ago. Nor do you know what the far universe is like in nature now. Time may or may not exist as we know it for example...you don't know.

So what are you going to do about it? Maybe stat by admitting it.

 

[dad]

No. Checking a claim to see if it is accurate is not blind faith.

You have no way to check on origins issues. All you can do is what you do, and that is believe.

You asked if I had checked out spirits and angels. I said no, because I've never encountered any. And now you seem to think that this means I am telling everyone to "toss out all experiences of mankind over all history and replace that for what you experience"?

So do you accept the spirits in history then, and angels? Or do you indeed chuck them all out because you can't see them? Do tell.

Only what can be checked and verified (either by me or others) matters.

So nothing matters but what is under your nose, and that you can experience. Quite a selfish little view of reality there it seems.

If a claim can never be verified, then we have no way of knowing if it is true or not.

All the apostles and relatives of Christ and disciples and John the Baptist, and many others verified that Jesus did what He did. Do you suggest you need to have it under your nose for it to be real?

No. When did I ever say that everyone must share my beliefs? You want to believe he existed, that's fine, go right ahead. I'm just telling you how I come to my position on things.

Ok, and likewise so did many others on issues of what science believes.

Can do and have done.

False. Religious twaddle does't count.

What have I told you about making claims and then refusing to back them up?

That this is what science is really all about?

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread Has Been Cleaned

This thread has problems that were removed - a LOT of flaming (debate without flaming and calling each other delusional please) and some off topic (this is not a GA Type discussion)

If your post has been removed, it was either in violation or quoting another post that was. Please remember the no-flaming rule of the forum and to stay on topic to the original topic. Please treat each other with respect, including during debates.

The full list of site rules can be found here.

Further issues with this thread may result in further cleans, a permanent shut down, and member staff actions.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RealityCheck01]

We have covered the following rungs on the cosmic distance ladder:

1. Parallax (a concept that children can understand)
2. Parallax applied to clusters of stars
3. Secular Parallax
4. Statistical Parallax
5. Kinematic Distance
6. Expansion Parallax
7. Light Echo Distance
8. Spectroscopic Visual Binaries
9. Expanding Photosphere Method
10. Main Sequence Fitting
11. Spectroscopic Parallax
12. RR Lyrae Distance
13. Cepheid variables (high school level science)
14. Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function
15. Brightest Stars.
16. Largest H II Region Diameters
17. Surface Brightness Fluctuations
18. Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)

The ABC's of Distances goes onto Type 1a supernova and then

Tully-Fisher Relation
The rotational velocity of a spiral galaxy is an indicator of its luminosity. The relation is approximately
L = Const * V(rot)4

This is better described at Wikipedia (but no math!): Tully–Fisher relation
If you want some math then the Scholarpedia article is good: Tully-Fisher relation

 

[RealityCheck01]

Going back to the OP:

Imaginary time used by science (we can call it evo time here) is based on a belief that physics always existed as we know it basically.

This is mostly wrong. There is no such thing as "imaginary time". There is no such thing as "evo time". There is time as measured by scientists. This is based on the postulate and evidence that the laws of physics have not changed here on Earth.
Little things like the surface of the Earth today not being a sea of lava puts constraints on radioactivity. The existence of the Oklo old natural reactors is also evidence that nuclear physics has not changed in the last 1.7 billon years. The existence of stars out to as far as we can see shows that even more physic has not changes in billions of years.

So we can be confident about

• tree rings (to 13,900 years ago)
  Individual bristlecone pine trees are dated to over 4,000 years old and chronologies extend to before 9,000 years ago.
• varves (to 52,000 years ago)
• ice core layers (to 800,000 years ago)
• carbon dating (to 50,000 years ago)
• Radiometric dating

The alternative is to not be able to know anything about past dates. Maybe the American Revolutionary War started in 1775, maybe it happened a billion years ago, maybe it happened last Tuesday!

 

[AV1611VET]

We have covered the following rungs on the cosmic distance ladder:

Jacob's Ladder trumps your cosmic distance ladder.

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Jacob's Ladder trumps your cosmic distance ladder.

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

What does the first have to do with the second?

 

[Kylie]

What does the first have to do with the second?

Just a Bible quote containing a word you used in your own post, VirOptimus.

 

[Kylie]

Wow, this has been quiet for a while. Is Dad still around?

 

[RealityCheck01]

We have covered the following rungs on the cosmic distance ladder:

1. Parallax (a concept that children can understand)
2. Parallax applied to clusters of stars
3. Secular Parallax
4. Statistical Parallax
5. Kinematic Distance
6. Expansion Parallax
7. Light Echo Distance
8. Spectroscopic Visual Binaries
9. Baade-Wesselink Method
10. Spectroscopic Eclipsing Binaries
11. Expanding Photosphere Method
12. Main Sequence Fitting
13. Spectroscopic Parallax
14. RR Lyrae Distance
15. Cepheid variables (high school level science)
16. Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function
17. Brightest Stars.
18. Largest H II Region Diameters
19. Surface Brightness Fluctuations
20. Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)
21. Tully-Fisher Relation

The ABC's of Distances goes onto

Faber-Jackson Relation
The stellar velocity dispersion sigma(v) of stars in an elliptical galaxy is an indicator of its luminosity. The relation is approximately
L = Const * sigma(v)^4
Since the velocity dispersion of an elliptical galaxy can be measured using an optical spectrograph, the luminosity can be determined. Combined with the measured flux, this luminosity gives the distance.

 

[Kylie]

I'm rather concerned, Dad, hasn't been on the forums for a long time now. Is there anyone who has heard from him?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm rather concerned, Dad, hasn't been on the forums for a long time now. Is there anyone who has heard from him?

Afraid not - his last post was on October 3rd.

 

[dad]

We have covered the following rungs on the cosmic distance ladder:

1. Parallax (a concept that children can understand)

1. Unless time existed as it does here then parallax cannot be a measure of time or distance in far space. Your bogus list then, is nothing but a pitiful attempt to appear to know something you have NO clue about.

 

[dad]

I'm rather concerned, Dad, hasn't been on the forums for a long time now. Is there anyone who has heard from him?

Merry Christmas! Having won the debate, I simply wait for someone on the losing side to come up with an intelligent argument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

1. Unless time existed as it does here then parallax cannot be a measure of time or distance in far space. Your bogus list then, is nothing but a pitiful attempt to appear to know something you have NO clue about.

Parallax is not a measure of time. Your argument is invalid.

 

[TLK Valentine]

God. What in tarnation does science know about what is in the center of the moon, or what the moon was like in the former nature??
The issue at hand is that man has been to the moon, and it is known now, what gravity and other things are like there. So deal with it. What you don't know is how it will be or was long ago. Nor do you know what the far universe is like in nature now. Time may or may not exist as we know it for example...you don't know.

So what are you going to do about it? Maybe stat by admitting it.

God's not saying anything about the Moon -- that leaves us two options -- science, or you.

So which is it?

 

[dad]

Parallax is not a measure of time. Your argument is invalid.

False. ALL measures in the solar system used for the all important base line of the trigometric measure involve time! No way round it. Gong!

 

[dad]

God's not saying anything about the Moon -- that leaves us two options -- science, or you.

So which is it?

Scripture says plenty about the moon actually, most of which gives the lie to so called science.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Merry Christmas! Having won the debate, I simply wait for someone on the losing side to come up with an intelligent argument.

Some of us doubt your ability to fairly judge such things.

 

[dad]

Some of us doubt your ability to fairly judge such things.

No problem. Some of those same doubters think worms are kin. If there were any substantive arguments we should see them posted here. M.I.A.