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.
Already answered.
We just had over 800 posts without mentioning Halley and Ptolemy. Then suddenly someone did. I accept the testimonies of books, subject to the standard interpretation rules for eliminating errors of transmission, translation and bias.We have time machines for historical events; they are called books. Some of the books that were written in the first few centuries AD say that Jesus was a real person; others don't mention him.
If you accept it, yes it does. I have said I do not accept it.Million year old leaves prove light was promoting photosynthesis a million years ago.
You accept rocks as evidence, but not humans?we are not discussing what men assumed then. We are discussing whether or not they actually were different then.
Mistakes in eye witnesses are a known problem, are they not?I have already told you that without human observation recorded, we cannot be sure that the techniques used to determine these ideas are correct.
I don't see an efficient way to check the spectroscopy of the proper motions relative to the center of mass of the solar system. Without that, we cannot verify if the spectroscopy is changed in ancient times or not. And without that, we cannot be sure of the movement of the star toward us.For somebody who claims to like math, you make the weirdest statements. If light was travelling faster, then a full second shining of a laser would result in a beam as long as light travels in a second. You cannot get around such trivially obvious statements. In the thought experiment, the angels didn't tell anybody how long the beam was. We figured it out based on the alleged speed of light at the time.
Don't bother to call special relativity ideas of contraction with speed into account. We are talking about length as measured by us stay at homes shining the light, not moving.
But here's an interesting bit of scientific lore for you to notice.
I'd like to call your attention to the following paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0007028v1.pdf
Here we have a most interesting method of determining the distance to a globular cluster. One discovers the amount of motion over time visible in photographs. This is a direct measure of angular shifting of the stars with relation to each other, in terms of how much angular space they travel sideways against each other. Then one measures their radial velocities towards us via spectroscopy . . . and the differences in those speeds for various stars of the cluster. Because the clusters are symmetrical, if we make the assumption the stars are moving relative to each other in the same amounts in both cases, we can now see how fast they are moving and compare it to how much motion that we see sideways to our telescopes . . . directly giving us the distance of the cluster.
Here's the quote at the end of the article speaking of this method:
No, I would ask who had charge of the photographs in the camera.Mistakes in eye witnesses are a known problem, are they not?
Seems to me you have your confidence level estimations backwards. Its as if two witnesses said the perp was wearing blue, and only one said the perp was wearing green, and the camera clearly showed a he was wearing green . . . you would say he was probably wearing blue.
No, I would ask who had charge of the photographs in the camera.
I don't see an efficient way to check the spectroscopy of the proper motions relative to the center of mass of the solar system. Without that, we cannot verify if the spectroscopy is changed in ancient times or not. And without that, we cannot be sure of the movement of the star toward us.
You accept rocks as evidence, but not humans?
There have been many cases where DNA evidence has contradicted eye witness testimony, and the DNA evidence has won out. The thing about DNA is that it can't lie. Humans can lie, and they can be seriously mistaken.
If you accept it, yes it does. I have said I do not accept it.
I, like the scientists you are defending, am the one with the training.
You are seeing what you want to see.
They work really well today. I cannot test them 6000 years ago.
You accept rocks as evidence, but not humans?
When the facts of rocks disagree with the statements of humans, then the humans are wrong. Not the facts.
Luke 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
Luke 19:38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
Luke 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Unless geologist don't see the [rocks and] stones crying out the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, geologists aren't doing their job very well.
And it is probably because their adherence to science and evolution that is giving them myopia.
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?