My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Just curious.

Which one will scientists look the other way in order to accuse Joshua of geocentrism? general or special?

Don't know a Joshua, nor whether one said anything about anything, let alone about being a Geocentrist...

Ever heard of what evidence is available from that or any other theory that time exists the same in the far universe!? None.

Let me lay it out again - We see a visible spectrum from a given star here. In our time. That spectrum has tell-tale light absorption markers that occur at specific and invariant bands exactly as we expect because of what we know about Atomic Theory. Now, if time there was let's say for this exercise, half the time we have passing here for us, then the visible light spectrum (wavelengths 400–790 terahertz) would be half what it is when it gets to us (i.e. 200-395 terahertz). That would literally put it out of our viewable spectrum. Same thing if it were ticking by twice as fast there as it is here. Then the light would be invisible to us into the ultraviolet spectrum (i.e. 800-1580 terahertz).

Based on...what? Your word?

Nope, Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

We wait for the details. We won't see them. Ha.

The Size and Distance of a Star are far from assumed, we have definitive methods to find these out - Here's a great presentation on exactly that. Let me know how you go... http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~sheinis/ast103/ast103_12.ppt.pdf

More specific and thorough coverage on the topic over and above the Size and Distance 'assumptions' you seem to think we make, can be found indexed off this site here: Properties of Stars

Specifically, the following index (which is self-explanatory) shows WAY more than the size and distance points of data we can find for a given star:

• Introduction
• Stars--What Are They Like?
  • Distances---Trigonometric Parallax
    • Review Questions
  • Distances---Inverse Square Law
    • Review Questions
  • Magnitude System
    • Apparent Magnitude
    • Absolute Magnitude and Luminosity
    • Distance Modulus
  • Color and Temperature
    • Color Index and Temperature
    • Wien's Law and Temperature
    • Review Questions
  • The Composition of Stars
  • The Velocities of Stars Doppler Effect
    • Review Questions
  • The Masses of Stars
    • Review Questions
  • The Sizes of Stars
    • Review Questions
• Types of Stars and HR diagram
  • Temperature dependence
  • Spectral Types
    • Review Questions
  • Hertzsprung-Russell diagram Color-Magnitude diagram
  • Spectroscopic Parallax
  • What is a ``Typical'' Star?
    • Review Questions

Enjoy.

While we do know light redshifts for motion reasons in the solar system, we do not know that only motion can shift light. Neither would any motion have great meaning unless time were involved there as well as here!

Well, we know gravity affects redshift, as does distance. I've already explained the time thing. Out of curiosity, how do you imagine time being involved? is it faster than here? slower than here? not existing there at all? I'd be interested to know how you think light would appear to us here however different you think it is...

In other words we base things on how it works on the terrestrial. That is you standard. Newsflash: we have time here. Unless we also had the same time there, any motions represent something moving, we know not how far away, or how big.

Explained so many times and in so many ways, if you don't get it by now then I suspect you don't want to know...

No. You don't even know how far or big the so called galaxy is. So tell us simply and clearly how you would know gravity from that?

So, the links provided above show how we can determine distance and size (and velocity, intensity, composition, so on...) - so it's then simply a case of plugging in the values to determine gravitational intensity using trigonometry and/or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Not at all. The velocity represents time. The time as seen here. Can you prove it is actually moving at that speed in any way independent of what you expect light to move here? Hoo ha.

Everything we see matches what we predict would happen with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. If as you say, time is somehow different there than it is here, then our models wouldn't match reality. I'm not sure what you think is going on out there that it could be somehow different, yet match perfectly with all the various and independent ways we can measure time and distance for a stellar object. I guess what I'm saying is that if you think something else is going on, then it's up to you to posit evidence for it because everything we have tells us that they are at distance and are doing things we expect them to be doing in real time while we watch.

Based on earth rules. What if time or something else also shifted light? What if created space expanded, could that have shifted light? Etc etc etc. You pick a reason from a pile you chose and before we can accept that we need proof.

Quite a few things affect this spectrum. Gravity, relativity (both general and special ... which accounts for the shift in time due to both gravity and velocity through spacetime), the Hubble Constant (...which is the expanding space btw...) - so quite a few things are involved, including time.

Nope. Only if movement exclusively is the cause of the redshifting THERE. Even if that were the case, how fast anything moves there must depend on what time there is like. It does after all take time to move!

As mentioned, a range of things affect the redshift, and they’re all included in the calculations we make.

No no no. That business of so fast per second is utterly earth related, nothing to do with deep space You need to show how we know light actually moves at any speed THERE. You don't get to look at light here, and impose that time based movement to THERE.

You keep denying what we know about distant stellar objects without knowing anything about how we come to these calculations. All of the evidence and observations match with our predictive models – something that wouldn’t happen if as you allege without support, ‘time’ is somehow unquantifiably different there than it is here.

GONG! No way do you have and distances, until you first prove time exists there and exists the same.

If time didn’t exist there then we wouldn’t see anything. How do you not get this? As discussed, if time were different by half (or twice) then the visible spectrum would not be visible to us! Do you care to explain how time could be different, yet we still see these stellar objects in the visible spectrum? I can’t wait to hear this…

Looking at shifted light from earth from stars we have no idae how far away or big may be, doesn't have meaning in the spectra that you claimed. Not in the way of speeds, or causes of redshifting etc etc. We may be able to identify cetain things like hydrogen, but that doesn't help your tall tales at all.

Explain to us then how what we know about atomic theory and Einstein’s theories of relativity match exactly with what we see from all these stellar objects in exactly the way we would expect to see them? Simply saying ‘Time is different there’ doesn’t work because of the aforementioned issues. That assertion can just be ignored because it just doesn’t match any observations at all.

One could make a click through based on what the Easter bunny ate last week, and assign ages to that. I dare you to do it.

dare me to do what, click through on what the Easter bunny ate last week?? I understand your need to deny the evidence, but this destructive habit shouldn’t be thrust upon the education system anywhere - this is the reason I started this thread. The irrational need for a select few to impart their wilful ignorance onto the next generation is destructive.

Absurd to claim shifting tells you distances or speeds. Look at the basis for the claims and laugh. You will see you are trying to impose earth time based things far away for NO apparent reason.

You have that exactly backwards. The further away we see something, the further redshifted we see it. Also, we can see the rotation of Galaxies, where one side of a galaxy is less redshifted than the other side consistent with the galaxy’s rotation. We see supernova occur in realtime in exactly the way we’d expect to see them explode. It seems it’s YOU that has NO apparent reason to be positing otherwise… unless of course you have evidence? I won’t hold my breath.

The little cracker jack box that is the theory of relativity basically assumes that everything is relative...to the fishbowl earth! Rubbish. Any so called prroofs of relativity in deep space can be looked at if you like. Bring it. Yes, time dilation on and near earth, and other proofs do exist. But the lensing and such in deep space has no meaning to the theory that I have yet seen, unless one assumes all things affected in deep space are so affected because to time and space and such that we find here. There is no independent evidence! If there is cite it. En guarde.

Weird. You do know the Einstein predicted things like Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Gravity Waves, and a whole slew of other predictions for his models of relativity that even he thought would (or could) never be observed, yet we’ve since observed and confirmed them all so far.

False. If time exists in the base line used it deals in time six ways from Sunday. As for brightness and etc...that can't tell you distance or size.

It can, and it does. I provided you the how and why several times now. You could at least have the courtesy to read the information and references… -_-

Great when you admit it is HERE that you base it all on. 'Gee, if it works a certain way here, it golly gee just must be the same there'

Yet all the observations match exactly what we’d expect to see for the same given spacetime fabric there as here. Your assertion that ‘time’ could just be different wouldn’t account for what we see because the indications we’d see otherwise wouldn’t match. If time didn’t exist there, then there’d be no light! We wouldn’t see anything!

You thought that what man could see was all that was out there? I prefer to deal in fact. The fact is you may not be all seeing as you thought. There could be things outside the fishbowl that we can't see or do not even know about.
That being said, the things we do see, say helium or something...do not mean a star is big or far or came to exist like you say! It just means we have some hydrogen and stuff out there.

Ignorance must be bliss…. That you don’t want to understand it, doesn’t mean nobody else understands it. You ignore the vast preponderance of facts to stay bathed in your belief – I have no idea how you get through life tbh...

The issue is not how shifted it is but what causes the shifting THERE!

We know these reasons.

Looking at your link I see this

"The key factor at work here is temperature. By temperature we really mean the effective temperature of the star (sometimes called the surface temperature). This is the temperature of a black body having the same size and luminosity as the star and is determined by Stefan's Law."

Size is not know, and the sizes they think a star are depend on time existing there. You have a hodge podge of circular reasoning, and a belief based house of cards...

Except we make accurate predictions on these so called ‘hodge podge of circular reasoning, and a belief based house of cards’ that are continually backed up by observations and further predictions. Creationists on the other hand contribute nothing of value and predict nothing of value. Go figure.

Lots about your beliefs and narrow minded approach.

that provides working predictive models that Creationists never will.

No. You can't.

From the link..

"
distance to SN 1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[24] The material from the explosion is catching up with the material expelled during both its red and blue supergiant phases and heating it, so we observe ring structures about the star.
The expanding ring-shaped remnant of SN 1987A and its interaction with its surroundings, seen in X-ray and visible light.
Around 2001, the expanding (>7000 km/s) supernova ejecta collided with the inner ring. This caused its heating and the generation of x-rays — the x-ray flux from the ring increased by a factor of three between 2001 and 2009. A part of the x-ray radiation, which is absorbed by the dense ejecta close to the center, is responsible for a comparable increase in the optical flux from the supernova remnant in 2001–2009. This increase of the brightness of the remnant reversed the trend observed before 2001, when the optical flux was decreasing due to the decaying of 44Ti isotope.[25]"

You don't know distance and the whole thing including speed of km/s is based on that. Pretty pathetic. As mentioned, they didn't even know rings existed and only declared they existed but we never saw them after realizing their after the fact modelling required that. Just like the missing black hole they predicted and type of star that was there were bloopers.

Well, we do know the distance, and we can determine the speeds accordingly as demonstrated. If you don’t like it, provide evidence to refute it! I won’t hold my breath on this one either…

The more you type, the more you sound like Pauline Hanson, one of our low-brow politicians here -

and

She’s a bit like the Terminator, we just can’t get rid of her!

Firstly, if time was not the same but a different amount of time was involved in movements there, that doesn't mean there are no movements! Secondly can you show us the experiment done that shows what hapens when there is NO time!? Why make stuff up? You have no idea.

We can model a scenario where no time exists very easy, in fact, I told you what would happen with no time and I don’t even have to model it! The emission of light necessarily involves time! Without it, how would you get energy wavelengths required for light, or for that matter, any form radiation whatsoever? How could you have such a misaligned understanding of basic physics to not know this, did you even go to school?? To put it into perspective, black holes are so gravitationally intense, that two things are acting to prevent the escape of light. Gravity, and time dilation. We can see this because we see black holes acting on surrounding matter (including stars) and we see these light sources change dramatically when they get closer to black holes, we see them redshift AND their momentum change according to the dilation of time. We even see this happen right here in our own solar system with Mercury. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is affected by the gravity well that is our Sun. this is why Newton’s ideas on Gravity didn’t hold up when we modelled Mercury’s orbit and the observations didn’t match the model. It wasn’t until Einstein and his Theory of Relativity did we get the exacting models we can now apply to almost everything we see in this universe to predict things otherwise unpredictable. So, in this case, Newton didn’t know that Time varies relative to gravity and velocity (among other variables), and now we know better.

As seen here, so whatever time is involved there if any we have NO clue!

Correction, You have no clue. The rest of us are progressing without you.

Wrong! Remember that all we see is always HERE. Secondly you do not know how far away the star is, so any gamma ray here doesn't tell us much.

Your ignorance is quite frankly embarrassing. Just demanding that what we know is ‘Wrong’ can and will be set aside pending evidence. We’re predicting things with our models and learning more about the universe which in turn is helping to fine tune these working models even better. That you don’t like it is tough.

No way. I think we covered that.

No, you didn’t. Not even a little bit. You’ve only flailed about complaining that it can’t be right yet provided no evidence to support your complaining.

And when that is off, we simply claim there must have been some dust or something delaying the info? Ha.
More importantly even if it were correct all the time, all we have is decay as seen IN OUR TIME HERE. Why? Because here it takes so much time to decay.

Again, we have predictive models that prove accurate time and time again. I’m sorry you don’t like it… You could always provide some evidence to support your case?

Bingo! Here! You then mentally project the time light takes to move here to there in 3 months or six months or whatever. You then call that such and such a percentage of a light year! Circular in totality.

lol! Because if time were different by anything outside what we would expect of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, we wouldn’t even be seeing the star in the first place! Explain how we could see light here if time was even remotely removed from how we experience it here?

Yes, but we would see it only in our time here! Your whole concept is therefore in deadly error.

….again, WE WOULDN”T BE SEEING THE LIGHT AT ALL! <le sigh> -_- talk about cognitive dissonance, it’s Your whole concept that is fatally flawed here...

Hey I couldn't care if they are bigger and further! Why would I care? The point is that you don't know. Your method of basing distances on the belief that time exists and exists the same all over creation has no value. No merit. No worth. No proof. You might as well calculate distance by tossing tea leaves or stones.

Except for all the evidence and predictive models we have that work quite accurately demonstrating you’re completely deluded on this point, of course...

Yes here it involves the time we know. There...we don't have any idea.

But since your whole concept of origins is wrong, and distances and mass and size and time and space...the claims of what really explodes are laughable...as well as where, and when and why!

I don’t know what originated this universe, not sure what it has to do with the demonstrated accuracy of our predictive models you don’t like so much...

All circular, and all belief based.

Yet you have nothing to refute any of it, even if it were all circular and all belief based.

Inventing new scenarios to prop up your faulty basis is not learning how to do anything other than how to change stories in a believe way to folks who thought you knew what you were talking about to begin with.
'gee, the stars we thought were there golly gee must have been blue rather than red, and big rather than small, and old rather than young, and blah blah blah and reinvented blah'

So, you don’t like it that we can improve our understanding of the universe when we get new evidence and facts? Well, that’s just tough then, isn’t it. Progress Made in spite of your unfounded objections.

If I believe Jesus created the universe how could that change?

Your belief has no effect on reality.

You can believe anything you like about anything you like. I agree my belief has no effect on reality in exactly the way your belief equally has no effect on reality, and I’m thankful for that.

So back to my challenge, I take it you have nothing to support a 6,000 year old universe? I’ve provided a squillion things already that disprove this idea and I guess you just don’t like it. Go back to the links I provided and explain to me how the spectrum of light we receive from stars, complete with absorption lines in them, can appear to us ever so slightly & gradually redshifted the further away they are to us if time didn’t exist, or was markedly different to what we expect to see here?

When we define reality based on ignorance and faith based whopper assumptions.

which is a creationist thing to do…. the rest of us don’t do that.

When one's idea of verifiable facts really means molesting facts to hammer them into a constantly exposed as faulty belief system, that means squat.

Oh, pray-tell, where and with what has this ‘faulty belief system’ been ‘constantly exposed’? I’ll assign this to the never ending list of unfounded assertions attributed to yourself.

Fishbowl philosophers would not know permanent if it bit them on the chin. They swim in the temporary fishbowl zone only.

Surprise! Another Unfalsifiable Assertion!

Or violating their needed faith in truth and God with demonic doctrines of devils.

Have any evidence to back this up? Reality shows this isn’t a thing...

Reality shows that a loveless Chistless life is hell. Here and now.

Nope, though I have plenty of love in my life so I’m probably not the demographic you’ve objectively, extensively and even-handedly examined here...

reality is Jesus.

Great! Where?

What is denied is not that the universe and stars exist. That is reality. Your baseless godless invented universe and origins is denied as a violent fraud.

except it’s objective reality, spare the baseless, invented and violent fraud nomenclature you tacked on there. The godless bit is just unknown/unknowable to us, scientifically speaking of course.

Changing man's world is not lying any more than changing a fishbowl is lying! Man needs changes, or the fish would all die of filth and choke on their own waste etc.

Au contraire Mon Ami – If God were a thing, and that God gave us free will and wants us to believe in him, then painted a 6,000 year old universe to look nearly 14 billion years old is in direct contradiction to that wish. It implies your version of your God is a Trickster God. Point stands.

Lurkers...behold the defeated religion of godless stellar evolution.

lol! We're seeing the defeat of something for sure, that's what the evidence shows...

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't know a Joshua, nor whether one said anything about anything, let alone about being a Geocentrist...

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Geocentrism or not? what say you?

Does Joshua get credit for employing "point of the observer" recording; or is he a geocentrist?

In your opinion.

 

[dad]

Let me lay it out again - We see a visible spectrum from a given star here. In our time. That spectrum has tell-tale light absorption markers that occur at specific and invariant bands exactly as we expect because of what we know about Atomic Theory.

So what? You think that matters unless size and distance are known? The question is not whether hydrogen exists out there or whatever the spectral lines show.

Now, if time there was let's say for this exercise, half the time we have passing here for us, then the visible light spectrum (wavelengths 400–790 terahertz) would be half what it is when it gets to us (i.e. 200-395 terahertz).

Wrong! There would be no time for the waves UNTIL it got here! Not time as we know it anyhow. The only way we can see movement or reactions or wavelengths or etc is IN time.

That would literally put it out of our viewable spectrum.

Since what you dais would nota pply, no, it would not.

Same thing if it were ticking by twice as fast there as it is here. Then the light would be invisible to us into the ultraviolet spectrum (i.e. 800-1580 terahertz).

NO! You envision time as we know it here to merely move faster or slower. No. Think of it maybe more as a lake of time that a star is in. We see it from an air bubble, in this analogy. We would not expect what happens in a lake, to represent what happens in air.

Nope, Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

That is relative to earth and our time and space, so it can't apply or help you.

The Size and Distance of a Star are far from assumed, we have definitive methods to find these out - Here's a great presentation on exactly that. Let me know how you go... http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~sheinis/ast103/ast103_12.ppt.pdf

Totally assumed and believed actually. 100%.
You do not know mass because you need to know time exists there to know either size or distance. Period. In your link, for example it said this..

"a star’s luminosity depends on its temperature and diameter.."

So...tell us how you know these or all is lost for you.

More specific and thorough coverage on the topic over and above the Size and Distance 'assumptions' you seem to think we make, can be found indexed off this site here: Properties of Stars

Specifically, the following index (which is self-explanatory) shows WAY more than the size and distance points of data we can find for a given star:

• Introduction
• Stars--What Are They Like?
  • Distances---Trigonometric Parallax

Parallax is taking a piece of our time here...space and time. Then you pretend it is just space, and try to use it as distance. UNLESS time also existed out there you cannot do that.

• • 
    

    [*]
    

    • Review Questions

    [*]Distances---Inverse Square Law
    

    • Review Questions

    [*]Magnitude System
    

    • Apparent Magnitude
    • Absolute Magnitude and Luminosity
    • Distance Modulus

    All these require the distance also. It does no good to see something luminous unless we know what and where and how big it is etc.

  [*][*]
  

  • Hertzsprung-Russell diagram Color-Magnitude diagram
  • Spectroscopic Parallax
  • What is a ``Typical'' Star?
    • Review Questions

  Again, to get meaning from lumiosity we NEED distance and size.

• 
  The stellar radius needs to be know, correct?

Well, we know gravity affects redshift, as does distance.

Of course on earth gravity affects things and in the solar system. Looking out where we do not know the sizes or distances, any gravity effects become less clear. We also do not know what else might affect redshift out there, such as perhaps...TIME?!

Out of curiosity, how do you imagine time being involved? is it faster than here? slower than here? not existing there at all? I'd be interested to know how you think light would appear to us here however different you think it is...

Maybe it doesn't exist there at all. Maybe there is less time per space so to speak. Maybe God created stars to determine time for us!? (as opposed to just mark time via observation)

So, the links provided above show how we can determine distance and size (and velocity, intensity, composition, so on...)

No, they all require distance. Show any one that doesn't?

- so it's then simply a case of plugging in the values to determine gravitational intensity using trigonometry and/or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

No, we cannot plug anything in to fantasy. Gravity depends on mass and mass depends on time to be known. An asteroid can have something orbiting it. Gravity doesn't need a sun sized star.

Everything we see matches what we predict would happen with Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

The things that were thought to match it in deep space all require things there to be as here. Looking at lensing without knowing the distance or size of a galaxy, for example doesn't tell us much about gravity, or anything else.

If as you say, time is somehow different there than it is here, then our models wouldn't match reality.

Your models are circular, and have to match. If you impose distances and mass and other things based on time existing there as here, the whole thing depends on that one belief. Nothing built on that assumption has any value whatsoever (even if many things are based on it like a house of cards) unless the assumption is valid and supportable.

I'm not sure what you think is going on out there that it could be somehow different, yet match perfectly with all the various and independent ways we can measure time and distance for a stellar object.

You have NO way to measure those things. It all rests on a single premise and foundation. With that rug ripped from under you, it is just a mess.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you think something else is going on, then it's up to you to posit evidence for it because everything we have tells us that they are at distance and are doing things we expect them to be doing in real time while we watch.

I do not need to know what a temporary universe that God created is like in detail. Just because you watch in time and base all thing on the time we know here, does not mean the universe is like that at all. In fact the bible seems to suggest a very different universe. All we need to know is that science has been preaching beliefs that it cannot support at all. Godless belief. Foolish beliefs.

Quite a few things affect this spectrum. Gravity, relativity (both general and special ... which accounts for the shift in time due to both gravity and velocity through spacetime), the Hubble Constant (...which is the expanding space btw...) - so quite a few things are involved, including time.

In your little sphere of assumption based theories it may be that way. The Hubble constant is not independent of time. Your idea of spacetime is impossible to impose on the universe. Gravity depends on mass and so we need to know what the distances are.

Shortened the reply to the long post....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So what? You think that matters unless size and distance are knows? The question is not whether hydrogen exists out there or whatever the spectral lines show.

For a spectrum, size and distance don't necessarily need to be known.

Wrong! There would be no time for the waves UNTIL it got here! Not time as we know it anyhow. The only way we can see movement or reactions or wavelengths or etc is IN time.

Are you dense? No time equals no movement of anything! Have you ever seen a movie or tv show where time is frozen and everything stops? What you see there is impossible because in the absence of time, LIGHT WOULD STOP MOVING TOO! If there's no time, then light doesn't travel anywhere let alone the several thousand to billions of light years to us here, and therefore we could never see it.

Since what you dais would not pply, no, it would not.

What? Why wouldn't it apply? Is there magic involved? If its your contention there is, then we can safely ignore you. Otherwise, we wouldn't see it because of Physics being actual.

NO! You envision time as we know it here to merely move faster or slower. No. Think of it maybe more as a lake of time that a star is in. We see it from an air bubble, in this analogy. We would not expect what happens in a lake, to represent what happens in air.

Nope, I don't get it. You'll have to make more sense - perhaps give us a model by which we can make all the predictions we do about stellar objects that match what we expect and observe as we do already, before anyone can even consider taking you seriously at that.

That is relative to earth and our time and space, so it can't apply or help you.

Except it DOES apply and it DOES help us - it makes quite alot of predictions andhas been verified repeatedly. Nobody's going to throw such useful theories and models away because you don't understand it...

Totally assumed and believed actually. 100%.
You do not know mass because you need to know time exists there to know either size or distance. Period. In your link, for example it said this..

"a star’s luminosity depends on its temperature and diameter.."

So...tell us how you know these or all is lost for you.

Do you even read anything I posted??

I'm going to break it down as simply and as basically as I can - I'll even type slow, just in case. We've done this for our own sun and other closer stars here in our local galaxy arm, which is how we can then match it to other methods and distant stellar objects, some of which do rely on time (but not all). Using our own Sun as a yardstick, we can use Parallax to determine the distance to a neighbouring star, and can even make optical measurements of its diameter. Its spectrographic output and luminosity to determine temperature and are matched with the measured diameter, which we can then calibrate to these known distances. We can then use that calibrated information to extrapolate out to even more distant objects that we can't measure by parallax but make observations that match with high fidelity. In a slightly more complex game of algebra, we can fill in missing variables with everything we've been able to measure and calibrate locally, giving us these measurements of far away objects - i.e. surely you did basic algebra at school, right? Quick year 3 algebra refresher...:

Example:

X + Y = Z or;
1 + 2 = 3 so given the puzzle;
1 + 2 = Z we can work out that the missing variable 'Z' here is going to be '3'. Likewise;
1 + Y = 3 we can work out 'Y' even though it's on the other side of our equal sign, as '2'​

In summary, we know all the variables for the Sun is and we can measure its distance, diameter, spectrograph and luminosity, every piece of the puzzle. We double check our maths and match this against an actual temperature measurement for the Sun as we feel it here on Earth. We can then do the same thing for neighbouring stars against the models we have to see if our predictions work - we measure distance, diameter, spectrograph and luminosity, which gives us the matching results concordant with our model, even if we remove any one of these variables, we can still work out the missing component with three of the four variables using our confirmed model without a sweat, and verify our findings with the actual measurements we've taken already! Now we Know we have a working model, we can then turn around and apply it to other stars taking into account the fact we have the formula and more than enough variables to make the calculation.

(Caveat for those who went to school and actually learnt things, this is a drastically over simplified explanation for an idiot. For any cosmologists in our midsts, I'm so very, very sorry I had to butcher this down to such simplistic terms as I have here...)

Parallax is taking a piece of our time here...space and time. Then you pretend it is just space, and try to use it as distance. UNLESS time also existed out there you cannot do that.

If there's no time there, then it wouldn't have moved anyway, what's the problem? We've swung around to the other side of our star irrespective what time does elsewhere.

All these require the distance also. It does no good to see something luminous unless we know what and where and how big it is etc.

As demonstrated above. Can you provide any evid-..... lol! What am I Thinking!!

• Again, to get meaning from lumiosity we NEED distance and size.

• 
  The stellar radius needs to be know, correct?

As above, unless evidence!

Of course on earth gravity affects things and in the solar system. Looking out where we do not know the sizes or distances, any gravity effects become less clear. We also do not know what else might affect redshift out there, such as perhaps...TIME?!

We do, as per Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Do you have any evidence otherwise? wassat? no? didn't think so.

Maybe it doesn't exist there at all. Maybe there is less time per space so to speak. Maybe God created stars to determine time for us!? (as opposed to just mark time via observation)

except it doesn't match observations. All the observations are repeatedly confirming the models and theories we have with a particularly high level of fidelity. Can't say I've ever seen a God do anything either... just sayin'

No, they all require distance. Show any one that doesn't?

As requested:

• Spectroscopy doesn't require distance.
  
• Type ia supernova doesn't require distance.
  
• Parallax doesn't require distance.
• Luminosity doesn't require distance.

We make all these readings irrespective of the distance. Some of these even GIVE us a measurable distance...

No, we cannot plug anything in to fantasy. Gravity depends on mass and mass depends on time to be known. An asteroid can have something orbiting it. Gravity doesn't need a sun sized star.

Why does mass depend on time?? Everything else will require more than your say so in light of the mass ( pun intended!) of evidence in support - excuse me if I don't wait for your reply on that.

The things that were thought to match it in deep space all require things there to be as here. Looking at lensing without knowing the distance or size of a galaxy, for example doesn't tell us much about gravity, or anything else.

Sure it does. You've been given all the details as to why & how. Go read a book.

Your models are circular, and have to match. If you impose distances and mass and other things based on time existing there as here, the whole thing depends on that one belief. Nothing built on that assumption has any value whatsoever (even if many things are based on it like a house of cards) unless the assumption is valid and supportable.

And of course it is all valid and supportable, that's why everyone except creationists use it. You're just cut you have no reply 'cept that mighty fine straw man you built there...

You have NO way to measure those things. It all rests on a single premise and foundation. With that rug ripped from under you, it is just a mess.

except for all the ways we can measure those things that are repeatable and verifiable to boot. Do you have any evid- .... BAAAAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha! oh goodness, I crack myself up!

I do not need to know what a temporary universe that God created is like in detail. Just because you watch in time and base all thing on the time we know here, does not mean the universe is like that at all. In fact the bible seems to suggest a very different universe. All we need to know is that science has been preaching beliefs that it cannot support at all. Godless belief. Foolish beliefs.

you have it all back to front again. All of the evidence confirms the predictive models we have and the facts confirm our theories repeatedly. Creationists and a 6,000 year old universe demonstrably has nothing going for it.

In your little sphere of assumption based theories it may be that way. The Hubble constant is not independent of time. Your idea of spacetime is impossible to impose on the universe. Gravity depends on mass and so we need to know what the distances are.

As demonstrated earlier, no assumptions required because of the universe full of evidence we have right here... I'd ask you for you to support your assertion, but that's like asking a galah to perform calculus. using the force. from another universe.

A galah is a type of parrot btw.

lol!

 

[dad]

You keep denying what we know about distant stellar objects without knowing anything about how we come to these calculations.

We have looked at how you come to distances. You use a ruler of time that you got in the solar system, and try to extend it to infinity as if it represented time everywhere for NO reason. Even in spectral parallax and etc it is the same deal. You look at an orbit or brightness or luminosity and try to use that for distance. No? The ways you do it are more circular than orbits!

All of the evidence and observations match with our predictive models – something that wouldn’t happen if as you allege without support, ‘time’ is somehow unquantifiably different there than it is here.

Your failed predictions do not help you. All other predictions are circular and often after the fact. It is you claiming time is the same that is used in all models, not me asking if time is the same. You make the claim. I ask for evidence.

If time didn’t exist there then we wouldn’t see anything.

So time as we know it is needed to see anything? How does that work?

.... if time were different by half (or twice) then the visible spectrum would not be visible to us!

Of course it would be. The things we see here are here. The way light divides here, or acts here has nothing to do with time there,

Do you care to explain how time could be different, yet we still see these stellar objects in the visible spectrum? I can’t wait to hear this…

Soon as you explain why you think we need time as time exists here to see something, we can look at your question. The star still exists, so why or how would we NOT see it? The issue is what time is like where the star is. You see all stars IN time HERE. You do not look at time here to determine time elsewhere. Especially since you do not even know what time is!

Explain to us then how what we know about atomic theory and Einstein’s theories of relativity match exactly with what we see from all these stellar objects in exactly the way we would expect to see them?

Name the instances you speak about. What exactly matches how? I think you mean it seems to match.

dare me to do what, click through on what the Easter bunny ate last week?? I understand your need to deny the evidence, but this destructive habit shouldn’t be thrust upon the education system anywhere - this is the reason I started this thread. The irrational need for a select few to impart their wilful ignorance onto the next generation is destructive.

That is why I challenge the ignorant models you preach.

You have that exactly backwards. The further away we see something, the further redshifted we see it.

Show how the distances are determined as to what is farther. Show how space and time could not redshift light? You likely have no idea what you are seeing. You simply assign things to what we see based on a belief system with no verifiable evidence at all.

Also, we can see the rotation of Galaxies, where one side of a galaxy is less redshifted than the other side consistent with the galaxy’s rotation.

So what? How long till we see a full rotation of said galaxy? What independent collaboration do you have that the light shifting means movement the direction you claim? Even if a galaxy does rotate in a way the leaves redshift in part of it, it still comes doen to what caused that redshift to begin with. For example, if some stretching of space affected the light at creation, or/and time, how would we determine that now?

We see supernova occur in realtime in exactly the way we’d expect to see them explode.

Define realtime!!?

Weird. You do know the Einstein predicted things like Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Gravity Waves, and a whole slew of other predictions for his models of relativity that even he thought would (or could) never be observed, yet we’ve since observed and confirmed them all so far.

You really thought that? Ha. Black holes? When we see things 'falling into' a certain area of space, you might assume it has to be a black hole..as per the way you theorize a black hole would be. You might think there has to be a lot of dark stuff to explain what you think are gravity caused movements in space. Ever consider it may not be gravity or gravity alone that causes it? Ever consider that there is something else you are not aware of yet that actually causes what you thought was all due to gravity? Ever consider that you reqally don't know, but have merely tried to fit all things into your puny little belief system?

Yet all the observations match exactly what we’d expect to see for the same given spacetime fabric there as here.

Since you never considered anything else, remember, all you do is force a match by hook or by crook, by fitting it all into your belief system.

Your assertion that ‘time’ could just be different wouldn’t account for what we see because the indications we’d see otherwise wouldn’t match. If time didn’t exist there, then there’d be no light! We wouldn’t see anything!

Your models REQUIRE time for distances and mass and etc. Yet you still model as if distances existed as you think of them etc. You have been too busy running in the wrong direction, to stop and think.

Except we make accurate predictions on these so called ‘hodge podge of circular reasoning, and a belief based house of cards’

Name one? How about the prediction of a black hoe in sn1987a? Let's see it? Ha.

that are continually backed up by observations and further predictions.

Obfuscation. Predicting things about billions of imaginary years can never be proven.

Creationists on the other hand contribute nothing of value and predict nothing of value. Go figure.

The 100% proven prophesies of the bible predicted the life and death of Christ, every major kingdom, the fall of Greece, and Persia, and Babylon, and others. It predicted the 70 year captivity of Israel and etc etc etc. It is the king of predictions.

Well, we do know the distance,

Show any distance to any star that does not rest on the belief that time exists the same all the way there?

We can model a scenario where no time exists very easy, in fact, I told you what would happen with no time and I don’t even have to model it!

False. You have no clue what would happen if time did not exist. Be honest.

The emission of light necessarily involves time!

Here...yes. Everything here involves time because time exists HERE!

Without it, how would you get energy wavelengths required for light, or for that matter, any form radiation whatsoever?

Looking at wiki we see this

"In physics, the wavelength of a sinusoidal wave is the spatial period of the wave—the distance over which the wave's shape repeats.."

Distance and time are involved in a wavelength. We see light here where we measure things using time. Light here in time is in wave form, for example. Since we have never seen light anywhere ELSE but here in time, how can we talk of what it may be like there??
The waves and distances in time here must behave a certain way. All light coming here gets 'translated' (for lack of a better term) into waves or whatever we see here.

How could you have such a misaligned understanding of basic physics to not know this, did you even go to school?? To put it into perspective, black holes are so gravitationally intense, that two things are acting to prevent the escape of light. Gravity, and time dilation. We can see this because we see black holes acting on surrounding matter (including stars)

Bingo!! You see stars acting a certain way and assume we need a black hole to account for it!

and we see these light sources change dramatically when they get closer to black holes, we see them redshift AND their momentum change according to the dilation of time.

Bingo. We see a light shift and as we know shifting to happen on earth, we imagine that causes shifting there. We know on earth a certain time is involved in that redshifting...etc. When we see redshift out where maybe no time exists....we have no idea what is really going on. It is ALL earth based belief based modelling of the unknown.

We even see this happen right here in our own solar system with Mercury. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is affected by the gravity well that is our Sun. this is why Newton’s ideas on Gravity didn’t hold up when we modelled Mercury’s orbit and the observations didn’t match the model. It wasn’t until Einstein and his Theory of Relativity did we get the exacting models we can now apply to almost everything we see in this universe to predict things otherwise unpredictable. So, in this case, Newton didn’t know that Time varies relative to gravity and velocity (among other variables), and now we know better.

The fishbowl of this solar system cannot be used to represent the universe. Because there IS time here. You have tried to project the realities of the fishbowl onto all creation, and have done so in a godless way.

Correction, You have no clue. The rest of us are progressing without you.

Vainity and wishful thinking. You have not progressed to any star!

Just demanding that what we know is ‘Wrong’ can and will be set aside pending evidence.

What you know should have evidence...it doesn't. You have shown that in spades.

We’re predicting things with our models and learning more about the universe which in turn is helping to fine tune these working models even better. That you don’t like it is tough.

Baloney. Name one such prediction that predicts what the far universe is like?. You have been dreaming and making stuff up actually.

lol! Because if time were different by anything outside what we would expect of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, we wouldn’t even be seeing the star in the first place!

What ridiculous rubbish!
God made stars to be seen. No Einstein needed. Name a reason why time has to exist where stars are for us to see them here?

Explain how we could see light here if time was even remotely removed from how we experience it here?

We see light here in a certain way. Time exists here, so we see stars in time. What reason would there be for star light to look differently after entering our time and space zone?

I don’t know what originated this universe, not sure what it has to do with the demonstrated accuracy of our predictive models you don’t like so much...

Stop referring to your great predictive powers and put the example on the table!

Yet you have nothing to refute any of it, even if it were all circular and all belief based.

Yes, I refuted distances to stars, and showed it involves using our time to get distances.

You can believe anything you like about anything you like. I agree my belief has no effect on reality ....

Good start.

So back to my challenge, I take it you have nothing to support a 6,000 year old universe?

The bible. Since science has no clue, we can go with that.

I’ve provided a squillion things already that disprove this idea and I guess you just don’t like it. Go back to the links I provided and explain to me how the spectrum of light we receive from stars, complete with absorption lines in them, can appear to us ever so slightly & gradually redshifted the further away they are to us if time didn’t exist, or was markedly different to what we expect to see here?

NOTHING you provided does not rely on needing to know distances. If so, what was it? Ha. You seem to be resorting to an urgent apeal to us to just believe time exists in the far universe with NO reason or support. All you offered FIRST assumed time existed there, and built distances and mass, and all things on that. I can safely say the universe science thought existed is imaginary.

Oh, pray-tell, where and with what has this ‘faulty belief system’ been ‘constantly exposed’? I’ll assign this to the never ending list of unfounded assertions attributed to yourself.

Maybe start by googling the failed predictions of cosmology?

Great! Where?

Where is Jesus? He is where He can be found by those who seek, and the way to find Him has zero to do with godless lying so called science.

except it’s objective reality,

No way for you to show us that redshifting is caused only the way you claim or that things converge in space only due to black holes, or that the actual reasons gravity doesn't explain the stars is because of dark stuff...etc etc. Your belief system that was falsely called science is baseless nonsense rather than objective reality.

Au contraire Mon Ami – If God were a thing, and that God gave us free will and wants us to believe in him, then painted a 6,000 year old universe to look nearly 14 billion years old is in direct contradiction to that wish. It implies your version of your God is a Trickster God. Point stands.

The only thng making it look old is stubborn baseless beliefs and a determined willful effort to religiously look at the universe through the lenses of a godless fishbowl.

 

[dad]

For a spectrum, size and distance don't necessarily need to be known.

So you say.

Looking at the basics used in supposed distances I notice this..

"When distances to nearby stars were found using trigonometric parallaxes in the late 19th and early 20th century, it became possible to study the luminosities of stars. Einar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell both plotted stars on a chart of luminosity and temperature. Most stars fall on a single track, known as the Main Sequence, in this diagram, which is now known as the H-R diagram after Hertzsprung and Russell"

Seems like it depends on distances determined by the trig parallax eh? Round and round we go.

Are you dense? No time equals no movement of anything!

Who wrote that rule? Gabriel came from the heaven of heavens to Daniel in the bible in no time at all. Also, if there were a different degree or amount of time per space in the far universe, whatever moved would still move, it just would not involve the same time!

Have you ever seen a movie or tv show where time is frozen and everything stops? What you see there is impossible because in the absence of time, LIGHT WOULD STOP MOVING TOO! If there's no time, then light doesn't travel anywhere let alone the several thousand to billions of light years to us here, and therefore we could never see it.

Yes, light moves in whatever time that the space it is in dictates I would assume.
If light moved in different time till it got to the area of the solar system here, (where it would then start to move in our time and space) we would not know. The only way we determine light 'would take' billions of years to move is by looking at how it moves HERE!!!!!!!!

Except it DOES apply and it DOES help us - it makes quite alot of predictions and has been verified repeatedly.

Name one prediction about time in the far universe that has been verified!!?

Nobody's going to throw such useful theories and models away because you don't understand it...

It doesn't disgust me because of what I do not understand, but because of what I do understand!

I'm going to break it down as simply and as basically as I can - I'll even type slow, just in case. We've done this for our own sun and other closer stars here in our local galaxy arm, which is how we can then match it to other methods and distant stellar objects, some of which do rely on time (but not all).

We are not talking about our sun! Our sun is in our time and space.

Using our own Sun as a yardstick, we can use Parallax to determine the distance to a neighbouring star,

No way. You use a swath of time and space as a baseline. Admit it.

and can even make optical measurements of its diameter. Its spectrographic output and luminosity to determine temperature and are matched with the measured diameter, which we can then calibrate to these known distances. We can then use that calibrated information to extrapolate out to even more distant objects that we can't measure by parallax but make observations that match with high fidelity. In a slightly more complex game of algebra, we can fill in missing variables with everything we've been able to measure and calibrate locally, giving us these measurements of far away objects - i.e. surely you did basic algebra at school, right? Quick year 3 algebra refresher...:

Nope. You can't measure diameter without distance. Simply seeing a star is a fraction of a mm in diameter can't help you.

In summary, we know all the variables for the Sun is and we can measure its distance, diameter, spectrograph and luminosity, every piece of the puzzle. We double check our maths and match this against an actual temperature measurement for the Sun as we feel it here on Earth.

So?? Who asked how big or hot the sun was?

We can then do the same thing for neighbouring stars against the models we have to see if our predictions work - we measure distance, diameter, spectrograph and luminosity, which gives us the matching results concordant with our model, even if we remove any one of these variables, we can still work out the missing component with three of the four variables using our confirmed model without a sweat, and verify our findings with the actual measurements we've taken already! Now we Know we have a working model, we can then turn around and apply it to other stars taking into account the fact we have the formula and more than enough variables to make the calculation.

As explained NO you can't. You need distances. No luminosity has meaning without that. We could also get into WHY stars are a certain color, or apparent energy.. Ha. Your whole idea of the inside of a star is bad religion. Temperature...etc etc. What if a star worked some other way? Remember they used to claim it was (if I recall) gravity or something making the energy for stars? Later they discovered nuclear fusion, and changed over to that as the cause. How about some other cause we never thought of yet? Why try to mold all of God's creation into your little limited experience and concepts?

If there's no time there, then it wouldn't have moved anyway,

As explained OUR time is not required for movement.

We do, as per Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Do you have any evidence otherwise? wassat? no? didn't think so.

Show us precisely how relativity applies to the far universe?

As requested:

• Spectroscopy doesn't require distance.

As shown, of course it does, they ride on trig parallax.

• 
  

  [*]
  
  [*]Type ia supernova doesn't require distance.

  Name anything about one that matters to us for the issue of time in the far universe then?? Ha.

  [*]
  
  [*]Parallax doesn't require distance.

• 
  ? It is a way they thought they could GET distance!
  

  [*]Luminosity doesn't require distance.

  Nor does it give distance! Hoo ha.

We make all these readings irrespective of the distance. Some of these even GIVE us a measurable distance...

Not in any way is this true as demonstrated.

Why does mass depend on time??

You kidding??

"Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems."

Home - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

The size of orbit REQUIRES distance! Speeds also...we need to know how big and far away something is to determine speed. As for periods, that is time! Hoo ha.

All of the evidence confirms the predictive models we have and the facts confirm our theories repeatedly.

We wait for ANY evidence for distance which you need for all the rest of your silly house of card theories.

 

[Kylie]

How would you propose we support His claim no God exists but Him? You want to call Him in for an X ray?

Followers of the Christian God could pray for a miracle. For example, we could put Matthew 17:20 into practice, and pray that a mountain moves. If prayers to the Christian God can accomplish such things, but equivalent feats are impossible by people of other faiths, then I will take it as evidence that there is no God but the God of the Bible.

How's that for ya?

 

[Kylie]

I have all evidences of history and Scripture. Science has no evidence either way, don't try to tar me with your problems.

Okay, then since we disagree about the scripture, let's not use that.

Can you make an argument for your claim using ONLY archaeological history, and NOT any book of the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, we could put Matthew 17:20 into practice, and pray that a mountain moves.

Don't forget to do your part too.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Get a shovel and get to it.

 

[Kylie]

Yet you claim God used Jesus as a tool..

"Sounds to me like he used Jesus as a tool to get the job done."
That is like saying you used your fingers to type a post. Jesus is God.

And are my fingers not also me?

Right. Man needs salvation.

Why? Also, unsupported claim.

The Way of Salvation is Jesus.

According to the Bible. Once again, you are using your claim as your evidence.

Man needed to see what God was like to make the choice of God over the lies of the devil.

Which is why God appeared in burning bushes, sent plagues, parted seas, did all sorts of miracles that had no real world explanation.

Funny how we don't see that sort of thing today, isn't it?

People see the unselfish amazing wonderful love of God in Jesus. He made the choice clear.

Unselfish? He created an entire race of people purely to worship him. Let me say that again - he created people purely to worship him.

Try to shoot straight, rather than play around.

Really, it wasn't that hard. The fungi/fun guy joke has been around for decades...

Since you can't use evidence for a same state past, or reason, or logic, or history, or the bible, where does that leave you?

Once again, there is a huge amount of evidence for a same state past. The fact you are incapable of understanding it does not mean it doesn't exist.

God revealed Himself the way He knew best. He let us detect Him.

A wonderful non-answer.

Science ignores that and looks purposely in any other direction. Their function is to ignore and avoid the truth, so that is why they can never come to any knowledge of the truth!

Okay. That's right, it's all just a big conspiracy.

Not with any half decent bible case.

Of course, because dad is always right, and anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong.

We have the conclusions in the bible..Jesus created it all. Those who worship science above that and still want to lay claim to the bible cannot fool an actual believer.

ACTUAL believer? As opposed to a believer who is NOT an actual believer? So you are saying that anyone who does not believe in a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible isn't a true Christian?

Now, if I'm not mistaken, that's against the rules. Would you care to rescind your comment, or shall I report it?

The result is that God created. The result is that the words Jesus confirmed as true are true. Those who concoct other results are just dangling in the wind, hanging out to dry.

Again, another non answer.

Of those who accept the result that creation is real, it is allowed that they have different ideas about how God may have done it. The thing is that nothing else comes close to the DSP in aligning science with Scripture. Flood geology is a joke, and falls fast when facing science. The folks who insert strange gaps into the bible as needed to try and agree with the demonic lies of origin sciences are embarrassingly weak. Others who may try to obsess on electric universe, or a flat earth, or hydro plates..etc simply cannot produce a broad ranged argument that covers all the needed bases and evidences. Then there is the loose canons, that have insane cult like ridiculous claims of mankind under a lake, Adam being billions of years old, etc etc. They are not of a sound mind.

Wow. You really don't seem to care about anything other than getting people to believe that Goddidit.

You assume that it is an assumption Jesus is alive and His word works. Millions know better and are walking proof.

The fact that lots of people believe is not evidence that what they believe is true.

 

[Kylie]

Don't forget to do your part too.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Get a shovel and get to it.

I'm not the believer, AV. It's not up to me to pray to a God I don't believe in to provide evidence for Christianity. It's up to YOU. So get busy!

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you make an argument for your claim using ONLY archaeological history, and NOT any book of the Bible?

OOParts and cryptids.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not the believer, AV. It's not up to me to pray to a God I don't believe in to provide evidence for Christianity. It's up to YOU. So get busy!

So much for 'we'.

For example, we could put Matthew 17:20 into practice, and pray that a mountain moves.

 

[dad]

Followers of the Christian God could pray for a miracle. For example, we could put Matthew 17:20 into practice, and pray that a mountain moves. If prayers to the Christian God can accomplish such things, but equivalent feats are impossible by people of other faiths, then I will take it as evidence that there is no God but the God of the Bible.

How's that for ya?

All mountains will move one day and be made level. The mountain of the Lord's house, New Jerusalem is moving from space to earth also. The mount of Olives will move when Jesus returns and stands on it. Most mountains on earth probably moved after the flood, in the time of continental dividing. We do not need to pray to move mountains for no reason. If needed Jesus would move a mountain for us.

 

[dad]

Okay, then since we disagree about the scripture, let's not use that.

Can you make an argument for your claim using ONLY archaeological history, and NOT any book of the Bible?

How did they move the great stones of the pyramid? Seems to me a different state in the past would make it easier! How did people fly, if they did in the past? Some suspect man may have flown with the big drawings in Peru and such evidences. A different state would allow it. How about the giant birds that flew? A DSP is simpler than exotic explanations of crawling up a hill to get airborn etc etc. How about the spirits that Egypt claimed lived with men? A DSP allows that. How the long life spans recorded by Sumer? A DSP allows that also. How about the various extinctions in the fossil record? A DSP and changing world after the flood explain that. How about Adam's kids having babies with relatives? A DSP explains that.

 

[dad]

And are my fingers not also me?

Well then why is Jesus not also God?

According to the Bible. Once again, you are using your claim as your evidence.

You have no evidence the bible is wrong, and it has stood the test of time. It is God's way of making Himself knowable and known to us.

Which is why God appeared in burning bushes, sent plagues, parted seas, did all sorts of miracles that had no real world explanation.

Giving Moses the law is explained and was needed. Plagues were judgments on wicked rebels and were needed. All miracles had reasons actually.

Funny how we don't see that sort of thing today, isn't it?

See anyone looking?

Unselfish? He created an entire race of people purely to worship him. Let me say that again - he created people purely to worship him.

? Can you show the verses that say we were created for nothing but worship?

Once again, there is a huge amount of evidence for a same state past.

The fact you are incapable of posting it does not mean it does exist.

ACTUAL believer? As opposed to a believer who is NOT an actual believer? So you are saying that anyone who does not believe in a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible isn't a true Christian?

? Why would I say that on a forum like this where it is against rules?I simply mention actual believers actually believe in creation.

The fact that lots of people believe is not evidence that what they believe is true.

Then try to post something other than beliefs for your science claims.

 

[Kylie]

Well then why is Jesus not also God?

Because while my fingers are a part of me, they are not entirely me. If a dog was to bite off one of my fingers and eat it, would you say, "Oh no! Kylie was eaten by a dog!" Of course not.

You have no evidence the bible is wrong, and it has stood the test of time. It is God's way of making Himself knowable and known to us.

I have no evidence that the Bible is wrong? How about this, from just the other day?

Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible

That is just one of many pieces of evidence from the real world that shows that the Bible is wrong.

Giving Moses the law is explained and was needed. Plagues were judgments on wicked rebels and were needed. All miracles had reasons actually.

Yes, I'm sure that Moses and his contemporaries needed all those instructions on how to properly slaughter an animal as a sacrifice to God so the Almighty wouldn't get upset.

See anyone looking?

Of course, you're right. Not a single Christian is out there looking for miracles, are they? Or perhaps you suggest God routinely appears as a burning bush, but is dismayed to find that there are no people around to see it?

? Can you show the verses that say we were created for nothing but worship?

If you insist.

Isaiah 43:7: everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”

Psalm 100:2: Serve the Lord with gladness!

Ecclesiastes 12:13: The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (In case you need to be reminded, the Ten Commandments contain several commandments about worshiping God, such as having no other gods before him, not using his name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath holy as a day of worship.)

Matthew 22:37-38: And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.

1 Corinthians 10:31: So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

And the many phrases in the Bible that say things like, "Praise the Lord!"

The fact you are incapable of posting it does not mean it does exist.

I am perfectly capable of posting it. I have, in fact, done so in the past. However, you have shown each time that you will ignore that evidence, and so I see no reason now to waste my time. Because I doubt you have changed your tune.

? Why would I say that on a forum like this where it is against rules?I simply mention actual believers actually believe in creation.

Specifically you said that those who claim to be believers but hold the scientific explanation of how the world came about to be more accurate than the Biblical explanation.

So, according to you, any person who claims to be a Christian but accepts the scientific account of the formation of the world instead of accepting the creationist account isn't really a Christian! Is that what you are trying to say?

Then try to post something other than beliefs for your science claims.

Once again, you demand that I present something other than my beliefs, despite the fact that you have never done anything more than present your beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

OOParts and cryptids.

And I suppose all those stories of alien abductions are evidence that aliens exist, and therefore the universe was not made for Humans, and therefore the Bible is wrong.

Or can aliens take a hike?

 

[Kylie]

So much for 'we'.

I'm putting it into practice by asking that a believer do it. Since I do not have the kind of faith required, the mountain won't move for me! I am doing all that I can to make it happen!

 

[Kylie]

All mountains will move one day and be made level. The mountain of the Lord's house, New Jerusalem is moving from space to earth also. The mount of Olives will move when Jesus returns and stands on it. Most mountains on earth probably moved after the flood, in the time of continental dividing. We do not need to pray to move mountains for no reason. If needed Jesus would move a mountain for us.

Are you really trying to say that Matthew 17:20 is a description of erosion?

REALLY?

Are you claiming that erosion doesn't happen unless people pray for it? Maybe you should spread the word among the rest of the believers, tell them to stop it! It's causing a lot of damage!

Earth has lost a third of arable land in past 40 years, scientists say