Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But not a time machine. For that reason, I doubt whatever they say about the past. Actually are those computer chips really working yet? The last I read a couple weeks ago, it's still pretty much a theory.
Do you?
In order to compute the distance to a star, we begin with the distance across the earth's orbit, take two measurements and triangulate. Then, using this number, we calibrate ancient light.
But just suppose both are wrong. If space bends outside our solar system, we could be fooled in the triangulation, as we are when observing something under water.
Speed of light, and/or time, could be different farther out as well, and all such measurements could be wrong.
[I know flat earth theorists argue the same way about the location of the magnetic poles. but we can reach the poles and prove them wrong.
We cannot reach the end of the galaxy.]
I do not completely understand the mechanics of decay, but I would assume that decay could affect the bending of time, and give us false information in the same way.
I meant to post this yesterday, but got too involved answering too many responses. I have at least determined why it is so hard to find:
Pliny Natural History (vol.1) : H. Rackham : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive this is one version I used (I had Loeb Classical, same translator) but it is the same date of publication. It was posted Jan. 24, this year, and hence was not available on internet prior to this. I assume this is due to the 75 year international copyright law. It is still under copyright in America (which has a 90 year turnover), and this was posted by the University of India. The versions I consulted in my study are :
Pliny Natural History, tr. Ackha. Harvard, 1958 Pliny Natural History. tr. Rockham. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard 1938 seq. Pliny the Elder Natural History. tr. Healy. Penguin, 1991
Now, open the pdf file to page 240 of the file, marked p. 231 in the scanned document. Note at 2-87 line 15, the phrase "the sun is at its centre". Verify the Latin on the preceding page: #87 line 5 "quoniam sit medius sol". Next go to the "authoritative" (and only modern English text online before this was posted) Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, BOOK II. AN ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD AND THE ELEMENTS., CHAP. 21. (23.)—OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE WORLD. and note four lines above the end of the first paragraph that "sun" is translated "he", thereby blurring the nature of the passage, and making internet search for the correct translation impossible.
Next, ask yourself why: Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia see paragraph 4 under the subtopic "heliocentrism", where we read: "It is a common misconception that the heliocentric view was held as sacrilegious by the contemporaries of Aristarchus." Read the entire paragraph, and check the footnotes. What was (for quite a while) believed to be a quote that upheld the heliocentic model (and thus Pliny's quote was relevant to modern science since it suggested the new model was impious), was determined in 1996 and 2004, to actually support the earth-centric model, making Pliny's quote irrelevant. I hate to say it, but it looks like the top Persues data base is trying to change history by subtly changing translations. If it did this at this point (which two hours of work was needed to find), I'm sure it has been done at the point which I have not found as yet also.
Due to copyright, this is apparently the only other text online: The Second Booke of Plinies Naturall History where "sun" is sometime sunne, sonne, etc., as was common in the 1500's. The new text I provided at the top, is unsearchable pdf.
So now we know why it is so difficult to find the quote. I feel so bad that I did not anticipate this change in thinking in 2001 when I did my work, and so did not write reference fir each quote made.
I also want to draw people's attention to this in this thread. My entire argument is based on the belief that scientists see what they want to see, and tell us what they want us to hear, and so I advocate teaching science as a search for truth of reality that anyone can undertake, and making it available to all. I believe I have proven this to be the case for a possibly relevant ancient passage among literary scholars considered tops in their field. Thus, my belief about top scientists doing the same thing is strengthened.
For whatever it’s worth, I was timed out by the CF website while trying to compose this.
Absolutely. I am opposed only to their concluding the job is done in some field when they have yet to be able to convince even a small segment of the world's population that their results imply this.
When you pass another car on a two lane highway, what speed do you get up to? And then what speed do you drive after completing the pass? There may have been many reasons for God to adjust things several times during the process. Maybe light is a catalyst in the first phases, and requires a different speed to do that.
My entire argument is based on the belief that scientists see what they want to see, and tell us what they want us to hear,
and so I advocate teaching science as a search for truth of reality that anyone can undertake, and making it available to all.
What people consider to be a "scientist" or even a "career scientist" personally is irrelevant, since there is a standard of determining those that is pretty simple. Everyone uses science to some extent on a daily basis, without even thinking about it (hence, flaws and people often not considering this "true science"). Furthermore, in most countries where becoming a career scientist is a viable option, people have the choice of what to pursue as their career, so I am unsure why you care about the number. Especially when you don't have to be a career scientist to submit a scientific article or even get it published in a peer reviewed journal.I agree with all of what you are saying. I have found sources that estimate the number of scientists in the world who are considered by their peers to be part of the group we call "scientists" (a group that you are preparing to join, if I understand you correctly). My only claim is that the total membership of this group is less than 1% of the earth's population of something over 6 billion, which is about 60 million people. Since the people I quoted are professional scientists themselves, I'm certain they have considered all of these statements.
By definition, anyone that believes that Jesus Christ is the savior, and accept him as such, is a Christian. You should note that calling someone "not a true Christian" is not allowed on this forum.We have a similar notion among Christians BTW, and you will see it frequently used in these threads, when we speak of "real" Christians or "sincere" Christians, etc. I have spoken to people who variously hold this number to be between 2% and 10% of all the Christians, thus between 2% and 10% of just under half the world's people, or about 60 to 300 million. In making such an estimate, those who do so apply a rigorous set of "standards" which are defined and agreed on by all members of the "club" and most Christians. The nature of the tests is not relevant to the count, since the same group is setting up both.
1. The ideas are comparable if you have a different set of evidence to work with. Scientists choose what evidence is admissible, so that the weight of evidence considered supports what they wish to believe.1. Oh, so I misspoke here... I meant to say "It isn't any more supposition that the physical constants have'nt changed than it is that our sun is doing exactly the same thing here and now as they were doing there and then billions of light years ago that far away from us." - Even this is a little too loose because it allows you to suggest your idea is comparable, when it just isn't. The thing is, we have no reason to believe that there was some different state past. A singularity that causes some undetectable rift in time/space, wouldn't be a singularity, it'd be our universe, and paradoxically, we'd be able to detect that. Again, Black Holes are detectable.
2. So detectives can't solve murders? We can't learn ancient languages that haven't been spoken in over a millennia? We can't observe ERV's in our genome that shows our heritage with all living things on this planet using the exact same technology that proves paternity between humans? You stand on your own when you declare that. Written accounts aren't any more reliable than an eyewitness testimony. When people stand up in court and swear on the bible to tell the truth, whole truth, etc. we don't assume they're accurate in this testimony, because we know for a fact that people remember things incorrectly, if they're even honest to start with! You'd be hard pressed to find any court case that doesn't have conflicting testimony from witnesses - they're just plain unreliable as a source of information! This is a Fact (the Dover trial immediately comes to mind...)! Since you say this though, tell me who the authors are that wrote the bible? Where witnesses are mentioned, who were these witnesses? where are their signed declarations under oath for each of these witnesses?
3. Correct, Theories must incorporate all of these facts, laws and observations though. If it doesn't (i.e. an observation or evidence is discordant to the theory), then the theory would be discarded, not the observations & evidence. A Theory in science is the highest graduation that an idea can have. It is the best explanation of all of the evidence available, and contradicted by none. Out of curiosity, why do you want to hold onto ideas that have no evidence in their favour and have demonstrable evidence against them?
4. We can date these layers though. We can (and of course have) researched many methods for dating, and all of them are concordant, leading to the same reliable results. Some involve radiometric dating & some not. We know of the K/T boundary, and the other four major extinction events prior to that during this planet's lifetime, where we can see these extinction events for most of life, and a rapid expansion of new life forms in their wake. We can see for example, dried saltwater lakes that have been preserved and buried, something that is literally impossible in a global flood model (salt is 100% water soluble), and volcanic rock that permeates the geologic column all over the world is another piece of evidence disproving a young earth & global flood model. the type of rock that forms from a volcanic eruption in water is identifiably different to the rock that forms in its absence. We can see the differences between a solidifying magma cooling into rock underground, and above ground too.
5. and there's no reason to think anything different given all the evidence we have.
6.Scientists, eh? They want to know Everything! Why can't they just play dumb & stop digging up all this evidence that invalidates YEC assertions, right?
7. What you're proposing though is a singularity that is literally universe permeating. We would notice this if we could live through it in the first place.
1. The ideas are comparable if you have a different set of evidence to work with. Scientists choose what evidence is admissible, so that the weight of evidence considered supports what they wish to believe.
2. We can learn ancient languages inly if the written records exist. We cannot prove that ERV's are correct before the age of recorded data.
4. You assume you can date these layers, becuase you assume consistency of scientific laws back millions of years.
5. I should tell everyone a story. Some years ago, I was walking in the woods three days after a snowfall of about 3 inches (and temperatures stayed below freezing until just before I went walking), and I discovered what I thought was a motorcycle that had been stolen and then abandoned. Being a good citizen, I called the police. Thinking myself an amateur detective, I looked for footprints and there were none. Also the motorcycle had left no tire tracks in the snow. Since motorcycles don't fly, I assumed the motorcycle had been stolen prior to the snowfall. The police came, we recovered the motorcycle, and they looked at their records and determined it had been stolen barely one day earlier. No tracks in snow that had to have had tracks. Explain it if you care to try. It is a fact. I do not trust my own deductions based on science, why should I trust scientists?
6. No not right. Why can't they stay true to their own calling and stop calling theories proven facts.
1. I agree, and I am objecting to scientists doing that.1. Tests to determine if physical forces were different in the past are designed based on the evidence today? How is it possible to design a test based on the evidence of today when you are looking for evidence of something different in the past?
2. Exactly. And the Flood is claimed to have happened around 2000 BC. There's no gap in, for example, Egyptian history in 2000 BC.
Not to mention that if the Egyptians were wiped out by the Flood around 4000BC, why do we have ANY Egyptian culture that dates after the Flood? Why would one of Noah's descendants come along and restart Egyptian culture exactly the way it was prior to the Flood?
3. And don't even get me started on how there could be a population of millions of Egyptians and millions of Jews only 500-600 years after the Flood.
4. We're not talking about heaven. We're talking about right here on Earth, in the present time. You know, real life.
5. Well yes, there is a consensus as to what constitutes scientific evidence. Why would you expect otherwise?
6. Anyone who follows the science rules. You can't claim to be doing science but claim that an unknown entity is influencing all your results. That's not science.
7. Just like pastors don't let just anyone lead theological discussions, you have to follow the rules.
8. Didn't you just claim above that we only see a percentage of what is there, and our brain fills in the details from its past experience?
Why should anyone trust that when it comes to science?
Can you find any place it ever has?Because it can give us insight into how and why things may be changing today and how and why it might change in the future.
Knowledge about the past can give information about today and insight into the future.
Sure. But instead of giving you something that is beyond many in this thread, I will give you the following argument from Charles Fort: After spending many years searching newspapers, he was unable to find a single report of stars crossing in front of each other as seen by astronomers. The distance to stars and speed of light does not matter. If the earth is going around the sun, and get 186 million miles from whether it was 6 months ago, and if stars are at various distances from the earth, stars must be seen to cross, it is a question of geometric parallax arguments (Try walking from one side of the front of a room to the other, and keep your eye on two chairs at different lengths from you). His conclusion was that stars are not "hanging" in space at various distances, they must be painted on some kind of canopy and thus all the same distance from earth. So if you can find a case of stars appearing to cross that will settle my doubt. (I just tried a google, and could not find anything). If you cannot, this constitutes presumptive evidence that the whole measurement of star distance differences is in error, and consequently, anything derived from it (including the speed of light in space) is wrong.In case you missed my second attempt to get a response to this question, I'm bumping it as I am still anxiously awaiting a response;
Shouldn't we have a reasonable basis to suppose both are wrong?
A simple yes or no response (with support) is requested.
I'm guessing, but it's a question of sales. Milk that must be shaken involves a retraining of the population. The benefits BTW have to do with an enzyme that is broken down in the homogenization process, that helps remove plaque from the arteries. In the 1980's I read reports that this was verified both in England and int he US, from reputable medical journals. BTW also, non-homogenized is sold right along with the homogenized in Australia, but not in America. We must drive to selected farms to get it, unless we live in a highly urbanized area, where a few health food stores have it.I asked for evidence, not claims.
BTW, I googled "benefits of non-homogenized milk". There's apparently A LOT of scientists being paid to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk. Who's paying them to say that and why?
The evidence of psychokinesis that could affect it. (There have been such experiments). Also, whether it is affected by the quantum observer effect, as is photons.If you are examining radioactive decay, what other thing would you choose to measure other than decay rates and why?
Have you heard of the experiments testing prayer in the effects of healing? I have heard unreplicated evidence of healing time shortened by two-thirds and pain as reported by victims reduced by 1/2. That's one way. There are also old experiments testing whether plants that are prayed over grow better than others. I have heard several resutls thOK, I'll bite. how would we test that? How would we scientifically test the hypothesis that humans can change the world by the use of faith alone?
How would we test whether human faith can alter the speed of light in a vacuum?
And yet there are salt water lakes on the tops of mountains. ANd that mammoth with tropical grass in its stomach found in Siberia.That's not even remotely true. Some of the first evidence against a global flood 4,000 years ago was discovered by men seeking to PROVE that a global flood happened 4,000 years ago.
1. No, they just aren't. Unless you're qualifying statistical data outliers, or identifying observations that are known to be incorrect/of no value to the results, all of the observations have to be considered. In fact, you can find studies that have set aside results but they're still included in the datasets, along with their reasons/findings for being excluded. Please cite an example so we can examine it together.1. The ideas are comparable if you have a different set of evidence to work with. Scientists choose what evidence is admissible, so that the weight of evidence considered supports what they wish to believe.
2. We can learn ancient languages inly if the written records exist. We cannot prove that ERV's are correct before the age of recorded data. I do not pretend written accounts represent any more than that someone said whatever is written there (plus that if a lot of people saved copies, then some people liked what they said). What does who wrote the Bible have to do with this?
3. See #1
4. You assume you can date these layers, becuase you assume consistency of scientific laws back millions of years.
5. I should tell everyone a story. Some years ago, I was walking in the woods three days after a snowfall of about 3 inches (and temperatures stayed below freezing until just before I went walking), and I discovered what I thought was a motorcycle that had been stolen and then abandoned. Being a good citizen, I called the police. Thinking myself an amateur detective, I looked for footprints and there were none. Also the motorcycle had left no tire tracks in the snow. Since motorcycles don't fly, I assumed the motorcycle had been stolen prior to the snowfall. The police came, we recovered the motorcycle, and they looked at their records and determined it had been stolen barely one day earlier. No tracks in snow that had to have had tracks. Explain it if you care to try. It is a fact. I do not trust my own deductions based on science, why should I trust scientists?
6. No not right. Why can't they stay true to their own calling and stop calling theories proven facts. That is, and has been, my only objection.
7. No, I'm not, I am proposing singularities of large fourth dimensional size, but tiny 3 dimensional radius.
No, that's not it.But the nature of the test is well known: belief in the literal historical inerrancy of Genesis. I did the calculation myself recently, from a variety of sources, and came up with about 4% of professed Christians.What small segment is that? It's basically only the "real" Christians identified above who struggle against the findings of science.
I never said that. I believe the opposite. That is why I can count the scientists by counting those who are allowed to submit the papers.Please show scientists are not allowed to submit legit science papers. You have yet to do so.
Citations please, so we can look into it a little further with you.Have you heard of the experiments testing prayer in the effects of healing? I have heard unreplicated evidence of healing time shortened by two-thirds and pain as reported by victims reduced by 1/2. That's one way. There are also old experiments testing whether plants that are prayed over grow better than others. I have heard several resutls th
And yet there are salt water lakes on the tops of mountains. ANd that mammoth with tropical grass in its stomach found in Siberia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?