Dad on Youtube

[Seipai]

ok?

Here I copy the part that I am using:

Figure 208: Stretching Out Light. Unimaginable amounts of energy were required to stretch out the heavens—in effect, to lift massive gravitational bodies and move them billions of light years away from other gravitational bodies. The same energy source that stretched out space (represented above by the blue springs) also stretched out—redshifted—light (represented by the yellow arrows). The law of conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. According to the big bang theory, the universe is an isolated system, so that energy could not have come from within the universe, as the big bang theory claims. Instead, it came from outside the universe. Thus, we can see distant stars and galaxies in a young universe.

“The horizon problem” has perplexed advocates of the big bang theory for decades. That problem arises because opposite sides of the universe have not “contacted” each other—even at the speed of light—because of the great distances between them. Nevertheless they do have the same temperature and other physical properties. The stretching explanation easily explains this, because all matter was initially confined to a volume only a few light days in diameter. Therefore, temperatures throughout that volume reached equilibrium before the stretching began, probably by DAY 4 of the creation week.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Evidence

You do not understand. I found your source to be bogus since they do not properly link their claims. I was not complaining about your linking of your source.

 

[lasthero]

Ok, but it still isn't answering the question..

That was a serious question?

You're basically asking me what a hypothetical being doing a hypothetical thing would do in a hypothetical situation.

 

[anyathesword]

You do not understand. I found your source to be bogus since they do not properly link their claims. I was not complaining about your linking of your source.

For example?

 

[anyathesword]

That was a serious question?

You're basically asking me what a hypothetical being doing a hypothetical thing would do in a hypothetical situation.

No, but I guess if you put it this way, yes.

It's a simple question. What is God doing when He stretches out the universe? What COULD you do when you stretch out the universe?

I don't see anything different than expanding it...

 

[lasthero]

What is God doing when He stretches out the universe?

How should I know? I've never witnessed such a thing, how am could I possibly make any reasonable speculation?

What COULD you do when you stretch out the universe?

Again, how am I supposed to answer this question in any real way? I can't. I have no concept of what that even means. I could make up something, if you like, but it's just going to be a blind guess that has absolutely no weight or backing. I could say it's anything, and any answer I give is going to have exactly the same amount of support - NONE.

 

[Seipai]

For example?

I gave you a specific example in prior post.

The claim that the sun should be spinning faster was not supported by links to a source.

 

[dad]

No....it's trusting in the evidence that is before our eyes......gods are irrelevant in that observation.....

Believing time exists as it does in earth spacetime far away is not observing, it is obsessing.

 

[dad]

I would stick to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for now, and leave aside the Gospel According to St Michael and St Justa.

Never heard of them. Try addressing science with science and leave your religious twaddle for a more appropriate thread.

 

[biggles53]

So explain to me what it means to stretch out the universe? What would happen if God stretches out the universe like a tent?

I'm not insinuating anything, all these verses are talking about the heavens, not about destinations, distance, sweaters, I don't know what else.

Synonyms for stretching includes expansion. Look it up yourself.

What does it mean then to stretch out the universe? NOT laid out..but STRETCHED out?

The claim is in the text itself. God already knew what He was doing and what He can do with the heavens. He inspired the writers to write it down probably not even realizing the significance of what they wrote. And way before science got busy for sure.

Oh what rubbish....! You take one word (in English, by the way....who knows what the original word was in the text...) and cling to it desperately in order to make it fit your argument...! To do this, you will then have to conveniently ignore all of the other ridiculous claims it makes about the cosmos....

 

[biggles53]

Double

 

[biggles53]

No, but I guess if you put it this way, yes.

It's a simple question. What is God doing when He stretches out the universe? What COULD you do when you stretch out the universe?

I don't see anything different than expanding it...

Because you don't WANT to see anything else...!!

This is the usual problem that confronts whenever you start with a conclusion and then desperately try to make all the evidence fit that conclusion...!!

 

[biggles53]

And dig and dig and dig........if you dig deeply enough you can 'prove' anything Anya....

Most of that is untrue and a distortion of scripture to try to discredit
the bible. Any rational person with common sense can see through those
pathetic attempts.

So then you are left with a young earth and a flood that deposited dead
things in sediment all over the earth, which is the truth.

I'm betting you can't see the irony that links "rational person with common sense" and "young earth and a flood".....right?

 

[dad]

Because you don't WANT to see anything else...!!

This is the usual problem that confronts whenever you start with a conclusion and then desperately try to make all the evidence fit that conclusion...!!

That IS the scientific method!

 

[biggles53]

That IS the scientific method!

No, it is not...and no matter how much you dishonestly try to misrepresent it, never will it be the case...!

The scientific method BEGINS with the observation of phenomena.

THEN a tentative hypothesis is suggested to explain the phenomena.

THEN further evidence is collected and TESTED against the hypothesis.

If the hypothesis fails the test of further evidence, IT IS DISCARDED...! This is the part that differentiates it from YOUR arrogant method. You insist upon clinging to your view and you attempt to MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THAT VIEW....!

This is the obvious and integral reason why scientific theories undergo change....if it is found that the current understanding doesn't match the evidence, then the current understanding is modified or, as stated before, it is rejected if it fails to meet the evidence by too wide a margin....

Stop lying.....

 

[dad]

No, it is not...and no matter how much you dishonestly try to misrepresent it, never will it be the case...!

The glaring reality is that the scientific method as applied to the past is pure belief in a present state past. 100%. Nothing else whatsoever.

The scientific method BEGINS with the observation of phenomena.

It begins and ends in THIS state, and assumes that all observed from the past was the same.

THEN a tentative hypothesis is suggested to explain the phenomena.

Right, first the belief, THEN the balony.

THEN further evidence is collected and TESTED against the hypothesis.

ALL things assume a present state and our laws. Firt. Only. Always. End of story.

If the hypothesis fails the test of further evidence, IT IS DISCARDED...!

Irellevant since all so called tests are within a framework of a present state in the past belief!

This is the part that differentiates it from YOUR arrogant method. You insist upon clinging to your view and you attempt to MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THAT VIEW....!

False, you just thought that the bellief in a present state was obligitory, and no one would ever ask for it to be proven.

This is the obvious and integral reason why scientific theories undergo change...

I know, because they are wrong, and always must change as they get shown to be so!


Behold the truth.

 

[biggles53]

I know, because they are wrong, and always must change as they get shown to be so!


Behold the truth.

You crack me up.....

Yes, we were sooooo much better off before science developed that 'wrong' germ theory, weren't we...!? People fared so much better when it was thought that diseases came from demons or 'bad air'....! Patients fared soooo much better when they were simply prayed over, rather than giving them the medicines and vaccines that we have now 'wrongly' developed through science...!

Ditto for atomic theory....

Ditto for gravitational theory....

Ditto for the heliocentric theory...

Need I go on......??

Yes, it was a much better time back when we were superstitiously burning and hanging and strangling all those women (because, of course, they were nearly all women, weren't they...?) for being 'witches', wasn't it...?

What a maroon.....!

 

[PsychoSarah]

That IS the scientific method!

No even close, the conclusion is at the end, not the beginning.

 

[biggles53]

No even close, the conclusion is at the end, not the beginning.

Bingo...!

 

[biggles53]

And here's the rub Sarah...... Even if we permitted dad his crazy
'past state' nonsense..... the question would be 'So what...??'

We live in the here and now....how would the realisation that a different set of physical rules existing in the past have a bearing on the NOW...!?

Would a different 'past state' help our medicine, agriculture, technology, engineering NOW....?

Answer.....NO...! It's just a fairy story people like dad tell themselves to feel warm and fuzzy...

It's to be pitied.....

 

[dad]

No even close, the conclusion is at the end, not the beginning.

False. The speculation result is at the end, the belief basis is at the beginning and all the way through!