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.
Unless they have been changed by some external force in the meantime. Like the famous The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact It's lucky we have a way to prove that this is not what it originally seemed to be.The rocks come from the past. They can tell you what happened in the past.
It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.A scientific theory is not falsified simply because people refuse to accept evidence that runs contrary to the religious beliefs.
Are you sure that changes in the decay patterns are not being compensated for in some way by changes int he speed of light? Well, of course you are, but I mean generically.If we were to observe the decay of an isotope in a supernova 180,000 light years away, and that decay was the same as it is here on Earth, would you accept that as evidence for constant decay rates 180,000 years ago?
You seem incapable of presenting any, so I doubt it.
Not anyone who knows anything about science--and who else would you listen to on the subject?It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.
I have too many posts to keep up with everyone.. Earlier today I posted the argument that part of certain phenomena might be that scientists cannot see them. The I posted a theory from when I was young, that this is in fact true. If the second theory is correct (and it has worked well for me for 45 years), then telling you the facts won't help, since the theory say you cannot accept the information.LIKE WHAT?????
If you are going to accuse millions of scientists across the globe and back through 200 years of accumulated research of fudging their data, at least have the temerity to present some of it.
What you are talking about is a worldwide conspiracy among millions of scientists from all faiths and through 200 years working together to hide evidence that an amateur with a simple telescope could discover. You can't be serious.
More opinion.I have too many posts to keep up with everyone.. Earlier today I posted the argument that part of certain phenomena might be that scientists cannot see them. The I posted a theory from when I was young, that this is in fact true. If the second theory is correct (and it has worked well for me for 45 years), then telling you the facts won't help, since the theory say you cannot accept the information.
It is called cognitive level change, and is documented as part of spiritual growth in every culture. By definition, scientific inquiry demands a certain level of thought relative to spiritual (not Godly) reality. People who attain the different perception simply stop being scientists. But then they can see more forces operating in the universe.
You failed to mention loss of respect there. No, actually, there have always been sizable communities which had little to no respect for science. It's just that it happens to be easier for them to communicate their distaste to more people than before, and more such people are capable of reading and writing.I found six other opinions of people who have counted scientists. I simply quoted them.
I know the forum rules, and I invite you to report my post, if you think I have violated them. In every such case that uses a term, such as "real Christians", the poster was speaking of their experiences in churches, and no one in the forum was included in the count, either implicitly or explicitly). I have seen such phrases here, but I have seen them far more in brick-and-mortar life. They reflect the division between those who use science every day/ and those who pursue science sufficiently to be part of the elite club that publishes papers, and gets paid for it.
I care about the number because I am concerned, more than any of you I think, about the loss of respect for science that I see every day. I teach in America Universities, and what you hear of American loss of care for science is far worse than the statistics suggest. In talking to people, I find that a lot of it is they do not trust scientists, and much of that is due to the early earth/universe arguments. There is serious communication and respect gap, and I would like to see that solved. I think my first response that science can be taught with any starting theory, so long as students are involved and taught science correctly, is a step in that direction. Apparently, a lot of you don't agree.
It's irrelevant how common any belief is, as that doesn't contribute to credibility. Also, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in deities. If I were exposed to sufficient evidence, I'd believe in them, I just haven't been exposed to such evidence, so I don't. So, until further notice, I consider deities a concept, yes, but few atheists would astutely claim that they absolutely don't exist.Yet most atheists believe God is in the imagination also. And belief in God is one of the most common beliefs in the world.
Then magic is just as viable an explanation as your 4th dimensional light is. Actually, it's more viable, because I can't demonstrate that magic would tear the universe apart like increasing the speed of light to the point that it transcends the 3rd dimension would.Many things are not in the Bible. The language did not exist to explain them. Any more than the roundness of the earth or the heliocentric system. Those reading it are free to believe either theory.
Trigonometry only works on flat space.It's freaking trigonometry. Are you saying trigonometry is wrong?
Could be? Don't you think you need some evidence before you decide to reject well supported and observed science?
No, we don't. We use the spectra to determine the chemical make up of the star. Period.
If all those things were different then so too would the spectra. The spectra isn't different. We see the same spectral lines from distant stars that we see on Earth. If the laws of nature were different then atoms would absorb and emit light at different wavelengths.
If the speed of light were different, then the energy output of each star per mass would be different. We would see different luminosities for different masses. If the speed of light were faster then less massive stars would produce more light. Remember E=mc^2? That c is the speed of light. Increase the speed of light and you increase the amount of energy produced by the same amount of mass.
This would also change the luminosity of type Ia supernovae. They would produce different amounts of light since the mass of each type Ia supernovae is the same. They don't. All type Ia supernovae have the same luminosity, have the same fading rate, and behave the same throughout the universe. This is dead lock evidence that the laws of nature have not changed for billions of years.
Then why don't more distant stars also change location in the night sky?
The point is they had a fingerprint that did not come from a finger. Even if the presentation was fictional, the movie makers made them the fingerprint to use in the movie. That proves it can exist.LOL. You saw movies?
Or is it their problem, if they believe them to be true, and I am right? Funny thing is, as I have pointed out, when you talk about long ago and far away, it doesn't really matter.Well, there's your problem. That doesn't change what the facts actually are.
It's still a theory, I agree. My objection since the beginning has been that many are saying it is a fact.
What God created on the first day is bigger than three dimensions, and does not need sun or moon to exist. The light we see coming from the sun is thus something less than that.Please explain to me the phenomenon light presents that is best explained using more than our three dimensions of space and one of time, rather than the rules of quantum mechanics and the Maxwell equations.
That is exactly the point at issue. You were not there, you cannot be sure except by inference.No, they are not. They are based on laws that have been demonstrated to be the same for billions of years.
The evidence says otherwise.
It seems that you are the one ignoring the evidence.
Depends on the level of the class.One could do that, but it would be risky for the teacher and risky for the honest and courageous students.
I think that is probably correct, but I have not seen the experimental evidence. I am also in another thread where that evidence is important to establish a Christian question of whether soul and spirit are the same thing.this indicates, any type meditation, paraying to whatever god, could impact your mind and possible help physical health, but they dont have much science. So, this means, you can pray to non christian gods, and even meditate and get the same impact.
I have previously stated I do not know how old the earth is. If I had such evidence, I would know.What evidence are scientists ignoring that points to a 6,000 year old Earth?
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?