"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[RickG]

That's a good point.

The works of the devil remind us of our need for God.

Scientists have no clue how to fight evil. All they can do is contribute to it.

How do scientists contribute to evil?

 

[Doveaman]

As has been pointed out repeatedly

You keep repeating yourself unnecessarily.

plasma red shifting is different from doppler red shifting; it is betrayed by having differing shifts according to the frequency. Only doppler shifting shifts all the frequencies at once.

I never said they were the same. Doppler redshift is the result of objects moving through space. Plasma redshift is the result of inelastic scattering. Plasma redshift explains the apparent anomalous redshift without the need for empty space-expansion or dark-energy assumptions.

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

But it is not necessary to consider space itself to be expanding. We can consider, instead, the receding galaxies limited to the speed of light and having their extreme red shifts augmented by the slowing of time the galaxies experience as they move faster away from us. It is an alternate understanding that results in exactly the same observations and if you don't like the expanding space idea you can take the special relativity effects idea instead. If you are interested in exploring the idea I just shared above, you can go to this website page

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

and you can see the discussion there of the alternate ways of viewing the expansion of the universe.

No thanks.

I'm not fixated on space-expansion like you are.

It is regrettable that aspects of the two ways of viewing the expansion have been conflated from time to time in an inconsistent manner.

I think it is your fixation on space-expansion that is the problem.

There are alternative explanations that does not require empty space-expansion assumptions.

Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift

 

[AV1611VET]

How do scientists contribute to evil?

For one, by watering down terminology: such as plutoing "child in the womb" to "fetus."

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Your premise is perhaps one of the most backwards things I have ever read.

You must be driving on reverse! Be careful!

 

[HitchSlap]

How do scientists contribute to evil?

By demonstrating homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. Makes is harder to get away with bigotry.

 

[RickG]

By demonstrating homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. Makes is harder to get away with bigotry.

Would that not be an attribute of the "maker"? ID? And not the fault of the scientist(s) who discovered the attribution?

 

[HitchSlap]

Would that not be an attribute of the "maker"? ID? And not the fault of the scientist(s) who discovered the attribution?

Yeah, but them evil scientists' get all the blame.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

So you tell me, what do you attribute to your car starting and running when you claim the timing was broken?

Before answering your question, let me tell you that this was not the first time that I experienced similar events:

1. Many years ago we were coming back from a visit to L.A. The place was unfamiliar to us, it was rather dark, and I could not see well. Suddenly, my wife, who was seated at the passenger side of the vehicle, pulled on the steering wheel so hard that I missed a metal post by one inch. She had no time to warn me that I was about to crash. When I realized what had happened, my feet started shaking so hard I had to get to the side of the road, stop, and wait for my nerves to calm down. I felt that I could have lost my life had not my wife jerked on that steering wheel so hard.
2. Years later, I was working in a food factory. My job was to remove the old paint with a very heavy piece of equipment that was hanging from above. My assistant was next to me and all of a sudden he asked me something. I moved towards him and the heavy machine missed my head by inches. My partner said: “You gained a new lease on life.”
3. Then more recently, the incident with the car took place. We were coming from Mexico and stopped at a gas station. My wife was not feeling well, and we were stranded near Temecula, California. The Gas station attendant informed us that he needed to close his business. I had spent four hours attempting to get the car started to no avail. The tow truck man could not get it started and told me that the timing was broken. I said to my wife: “Let’s call a taxi.” She said: “Let me try one more time.” She said: “In the name of the Lord, and turned the ignition key.” The car started. We got safely home, but next morning the car refused to cooperate. I called the tow truck, and the mechanic informed me that the timing was broken and that there was no way to get the car started.

Now I am ready to answer your question. I believe that providence wanted me alive for some mysterious purpose. For the last two decades I have been involved in the pro-life business. I have several web pages for said purpose, I have a 500 mailing list, I have been contributing to pro-life causes from my meager social security check, and I managed to publish two pro-life books with the same aim.

Why did providence save me from a sure death more than once? I do not know, but I suspect that perhaps the lives of those saved from abortion was worth the risk of protecting me from death. I cannot prove anything, but I am glad you forced me to share my personal experience with you. I do not do this very often.

 

[dad]

Then how could we see a time gap between a supernova explosion and rings of debris around supernova 1987a? How could we observe the continuing changes in supernova 1987a:

We observe here..in time. For us, it involves time. How can we know it also does there? What signs happen in the stars were meant to be seen here, and unfold in time as we know it!

Now, if time was different there, say the events took a different amount of time..That would not apply here...we would see it in our time! Now if time didn't exist there at all, well, water happened there would be seen here and involve time!

 

[dad]

Not only that, we were able to observe specific isotopes from gamma ray emissions of SN1987A 169,000 light years distant and measure their decay rates, which are exactly the same as we observe today on earth.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131

Full paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9912131.pdf

I'll have to look at that more closely. However my first thought on that is that light is what carries the info..no? That would mean that we would see things here in time.


Now if we want to get into sn1987a then we need to look at the light curves, and a bunch of things. Don't make it sound like it is in the bag.

 

[dad]

No, not end of story. I asked how you the past was physically different and by what means is that observed and quantified. So far you have not presented any evidence of a different past.

The present is observed, the future and past are not.

 

[RickG]

I'll have to look at that more closely. However my first thought on that is that light is what carries the info..no? That would mean that we would see things here in time.

Yes, what Knodlseder observed via "gamma-ray line astronomy" is the gamma-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in which the half-lives of several radionuclides were able to be measured that occurred 169,000 years ago. Those half-lives of those nuclides are well within what we measure today in geochronology labs. That is positive conformation that neither decay rates nor any physical properties have changed.

 

[RickG]

The present is observed, the future and past are not.

So Jesus did not exist. Thanks for the info.

 

[dad]

Yes, what Knodlseder observed via "gamma-ray line astronomy" is the gamma-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in which the half-lives of several radionuclides were able to be measured that occurred 169,000 years ago. Those half-lives of those nuclides are well within what we measure today in geochronology labs. That is positive conformation that neither decay rates nor any physical properties have changed.

That seems to assume that the rays that contain the info, and, of course, unfold in time here represent the time at source. Remember we see the light, in this case, the rays...here!

 

[dad]

So Jesus did not exist. Thanks for the info.

We do not observe the man now, or see Him make that wine..etc. in no sick way can that be taken to mean that He did not live. That is debating???

 

[TLK Valentine]

We do not observe the man now, or see Him make that wine..etc. in no sick way can that be taken to mean that He did not live. That is debating???

It's different state debating.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

From soup to cells — the origin of life

“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. …”

Ref.: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01

If tomorrow experts were to succeed in creating life from non-living matter, would you still argue that the origin of life is not an integral part of the theory of evolution?

yes, because the theory of biological evolution explains how life changes. But life cannot change if life isn't there yet.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's a good point.

The works of the devil remind us of our need for God.

Scientists have no clue how to fight evil. All they can do is contribute to it.

I count the discovery of penicillin and its production and availability as fighting evil. Therefore, you are wrong here.

 

[dad]

It's different state debating.

Actually, noting that we now don't see the folks in Jesus day still is simple sanity.

 

[dad]

Yes, what Knodlseder observed via "gamma-ray line astronomy" is the gamma-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in which the half-lives of several radionuclides were able to be measured that occurred 169,000 years ago. Those half-lives of those nuclides are well within what we measure today in geochronology labs. That is positive conformation that neither decay rates nor any physical properties have changed.

Unless time existed at the star (?) then it was not 169,000 years ago at all.The way you get that distance is by including time and distance in a parallax measure! So what we have is a star of unknown distance and unknown size. Some of the materials in that 'star' exploded and produced some stuff. How exactly that actually happened is theory. For example they talk of the r process.

"The r-process is a nucleosynthesis process that occurs in core-collapse supernovae (see alsosupernova nucleosynthesis) and is responsible for the creation of approximately half of the neutron-rich atomic nuclei heavier than iron. The process entails a succession of rapid neutron captures (hence the name r-process) by heavy seed nuclei, typically56Fe or other more neutron-rich heavy isotopes."

Interestingly we see this same link--

"The r-process described by the B2FH paper was first computed time-dependently at Caltech by Phillip Seeger,William A. Fowler and Donald D. Clayton,[2] who achieved the first successful caricature of the r-process abundances and showed its evolution in time."

"Today, the r-process abundances are determined using their technique of subtracting the more reliable s-process isotopic abundances from the total isotopic abundances and attributing the remainder to the r-process nucleosynthesis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process

So, that s process, then, is basically this..

"The s-process or slow-neutron -capture-process is a nucleosynthesis process that occurs at relatively low neutron density and intermediate temperature conditions in stars. Under these conditions heavier nuclei are created by neutron capture, increasing the atomic weight of the nucleus by one. A neutron in the new nucleus decays by beta-minus decay to a proton, creating a nucleus of higher atomic number. The rate of neutron capture by atomic nuclei is slow relative to the rate of radioactive beta-minus decay, hence the name. Although considerable variability exists, one gets the right idea to think that the time between successive neutron captures is about 100 years, whereas the time for beta decay is about one minute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

The question arises whether changes we see in atoms far away have to be caused by our laws!? Simply because under our physics, we need to have things change one atomic number or etc...a certain way doesn't mean that is how it is. That just means that we used our laws to come up with the explanation. The whole idea of nuclearsynthesis --which your article relies on by the way---should be looked at again, without your assumptions.

Anyhow once we have the nickel, however it really got there, or cobalt, or etc, that is what we see in the gamma lines.

That doesn't mean time exists at the star that I can yet see. It seems to mean that the stuff produced (presumably God ordained to be seen as a sign on earth) would then exist in time! We measure the flash of the explosion in time here. But one could imagine that that flash could be more of a flashing into time.

I also notice this in your link
"
Surprisingly, the 56 Co lines were detected already 6 months after explosion, at
an epoch where standard onion-shell supernova expansion models still pre-
dicted a substantial gamma-ray opacity for the envelope. The gamma-ray
line lightcurves presented clear evidence that 56 Co was found over a large
range of optical depths, with a small fraction at very low depth [20]. Probably
some fragmentation of the ejecta and acceleration of the emitting radioactivity
within are required to explain the observations."

So there are other ways to look at things and explain thing than your belief system.