"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Astrophile]

Doppler redshift has been empirically demonstrated (light can shift to the red as objects move away from us). Tired-light redshift has been empirical demonstrated (light can shift to the red as it loses energy traveling through a medium). Space-expansion redshift has never been empirically demonstrated in any form or fashion. How do we even begin to demonstrate space-expansion redshift without first showing that empty space can expand?

Your faith in unseen entities is far stronger than mine.

Allan Sandage and Lori Lubin used the Tolman surface brightness test for galaxies
to confirm the reality of the expansion of the universe; their measurements excluded 'tired light' hypotheses at a significance of better than 10 sigma. See http://.arXiv.org/abs/0905.3199 and http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566 for more details.

 

[JasonClark]

Problem is you are not observing a god you just think you are, do you observe things that you know are not from god?
if you do how can you tell which is and which isn't from god?

You can only know that if you had the sixth sense to see or not see what I see or not see.
Yes, atheism.
Atheists don't believe in God, so I know atheism is not from God.

You are even unable to answer simple questions for fear they might compromise your beliefs, as you wish, it's your life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is you who is rationalizing the "deceptive" behavior of nature/redshift by claiming that empty space can expand (embedded expansion).

Why is nature deceiving us into believing the universe is expanding faster than light-speed?

But it isn't. We can observed and understand the expansion of space and even explain it so that others can understand it. You can't explain why we observe evolution not only in the fossil record, but in our DNA, through ERV's, through biochemistry, and through other nested hierarchies. The best you can do is to wave your hands and claim that God must have a reason for what appears to be duplicitous behavior. There are many Christians that accept reality. Accepting reality does not mean God does not exist. Your own personal version of "God" may have been shown to be wrong, but that is not an attack on Christianity. I am sure that you have no pity on the Catholics that tried and found Galileo for heresy based on his claiming that the Earth went around the Sun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion, while highly esteemed by yourself, opposes something more esteemed to billions. Scripture. That means you have but one alternative here, make a clear concise case packed with real facts and evidences to try to support your godless chirping.

Oh please, if anyone is making "godless chirping" it is you. Your beliefs are not supported by either the Bible or by science. Your beliefs have been show to be wrong using Scripture. You were defeated by me long ago. You probably have not made one valid post in years here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is total hogwash.

Doppler redshift has been empirically demonstrated (light can shift to the red as objects move away from us). Tired-light redshift has been empirical demonstrated (light can shift to the red as it loses energy traveling through a medium). Space-expansion redshift has never been empirically demonstrated in any form or fashion. How do we even begin to demonstrate space-expansion redshift without first showing that empty space can expand?

Your faith in unseen entities is far stronger than mine.

Wrong, it has been claimed but not demonstrated. Let's see the peer reviewed science that supports this. You will have to rely on the Electric Universe nuts for this and they can't pass peer review either.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Welcome to the world of faith, my friend.

A world where people believe things, even when evidence says otherwise.

And faith is alive and well on the earth; and won't be going anywhere soon.

Unless, of course, Jesus returns -- then, as the song goes, our faith will end in sight.

People who are afraid to follow the evidence wherever it truly leads are those who lack faith. They confuse denial with faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

People who are afraid to follow the evidence wherever it truly leads are those who lack faith. They confuse denial with faith.

I'll follow any evidence anywhere if I have to.

Until it attempts to lead me away from the Bible.

Then it's on its own.

I won't walk that path.

 

[HitchSlap]

People who are afraid to follow the evidence wherever it truly leads are those who lack faith. They confuse denial with faith.

And what of those who conflate faith with fact? That's the point of following evidence, faith isn't required.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'll follow any evidence anywhere if I have to.

Until it attempts to lead me away from the Bible.

Then it's on its own.

I won't walk that path.

Do you really think that "evidence" has a mind that it uses to choose to attempt to lead you? Isn't reality merely what it actually is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you really think that "evidence" has a mind that it uses to choose to attempt to lead you?

Um ... I was using your figure of speech.

Didn't you say this?

People who are afraid to follow the evidence wherever it truly leads are those who lack faith.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And what of those who conflate faith with fact? That's the point of following evidence, faith isn't required.

You have swallowed too much of the definition of faith that reality deniers use. You use faith every day in your family, your career, your life. Faith is choosing to trust. There are those who choose based on evidence, and those who choose in the absence of evidence, and those who choose against the evidence. We all make our faith choices.

People who define faith as believing in the absence of evidence are mistaken. Using that definition is part of their psychological defense strategy.

 

[HitchSlap]

You have swallowed too much of the definition of faith that reality deniers use. You use faith every day in your family, your career, your life. Faith is choosing to trust. There are those who choose based on evidence, and those who choose in the absence of evidence, and those who choose against the evidence. We all make our faith choices.

People who define faith as believing in the absence of evidence are mistaken. Using that definition is part of their psychological defense strategy.

I trust things I have reason to.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Um ... I was using your figure of speech.

Didn't you say this?

OK would you then please explain to us all how you came to realize the Bible as you literally interpret it is, actually, the literal writing of God. Be sure to avoid all use of evidence in making this disclosure, because you don't allow actual evidence to be your guide in this.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK would you then please explain to us all how you came to realize the Bible as you literally interpret it is, actually, the literal writing of God. Be sure to avoid all use of evidence in making this disclosure, because you don't allow actual evidence to be your guide in this.

[VERSE=Romans 10:17,KJV]So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[/VERSE][VERSE=1 Thessalonians 2:13,KJV]For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.[/VERSE]

 

[Doveaman]

Allan Sandage and Lori Lubin used the Tolman surface brightness test for galaxies

to confirm the reality of the expansion of the universe; their measurements excluded 'tired light' hypotheses at a significance of better than 10 sigma. See http://.arXiv.org/abs/0905.3199 and http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566 for more details.

Bear in mind I'm not denying expansion due to the Doppler effect (the motion of objects through space relative to us), but the expansion of the space itself is in the realm of magic.

All you need to show now is the cause/effect relationship between the results from those tests and the expansion of empty space.

Good luck.

 

[JasonClark]

[VERSE=Romans 10:17,KJV]So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[/VERSE][VERSE=1 Thessalonians 2:13,KJV]For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.[/VERSE]

That's a lot of people you are believing before you even get to believing a god.

 

[Doveaman]

But it isn't. We can observed and understand the expansion of space and even explain it so that others can understand it.

We don't need an explanation. We already know the explanation -- it's all over the internet. If I wanted to place my faith in an explanation I would read the Bible.

What we need is the observation that confirms the explanation without the need for circular reasoning (like we see space expansion because we see redshift, and we see redshift because we see space expansion).

If the empty space between two objects is observed to expand, then show us that observation and the cause/effect relationship between that observation and redshift, and enough with the make-belief stories.

 

[Doveaman]

Wrong, it has been claimed but not demonstrated. Let's see the peer reviewed science that supports this. You will have to rely on the Electric Universe nuts for this and they can't pass peer review either.

More hogwash.

It’s referred to as plasma redshift here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a lot of people you are believing before you even get to believing a god.

Every Christian on earth ... past, present, and future ... believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

 

[JasonClark]

Every Christian on earth ... past, present, and future ... believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Past? yes fear was everywhere. Present? not as many as you would like to think. Future? knowledge at the fingertips will cut short any future Christianity might have had.
Islam will be the next cause for concern for people in the future.