My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Kylie]

[prediction] The world is going to end. [/prediction]

Any questions?

Wow.

I predict that you will eat and breathe. I was right! I should be revered as a seer of the future!

 

[Kylie]

Who knows how they were built?

We have a very decent idea how they were built.

You dredge up present state based models. Fine.

Ah, so your argument against anything I present is to declare it wrong.

You want evidence for a present state explanation, but then dismiss it because it's not past state.

And you wonder why I refuse to actually waste my time getting actual evidence for you anymore. This is why, dad.

The article said that.

And did you miss the bit where the article also said:

"Ksepka suspects that the bird, like the previous largest-flying-bird record-holder Argentavis magnificens (wingspan: 22 feet, or about three Michael Jordans), might have run downhill into a headwind or simply waited for a wind gust to take to the air."​

What part of this is implausible to you? Hills, gravity, air or running?

Do you think this could not have happened in a DSP?

Not as big as schoolbuses.

So what? Do you think that objects that size are incapable of it?

Why argue for the sake of arguing? If something was designed to be seen from above one assumes it was made to be seen above.

And of course, it was never looked at in any other way, was it?

"At 48 pounds (21.8 kilograms), Pelagornis sandersi was not as heavy as a flightless ostrich—which can weigh 320 pounds (145 kilograms)—but it was still likely too heavy (and had feet too tiny) to run on the water and take off like a goose or other waterfowl. (Related: "Giant Prehistoric Bird Crushed Seeds, Not Little Horses.")"

Biggest Flying Seabird Had 21-Foot Wingspan, Scientists Say

Oh, you didn't read very much, did you? What's the VERY NEXT SENTENCE after that?

Just as I would use distances to the sun that science uses but consider most cosmology inaccurate.

That's a pretty bad argument.

 

[Kylie]

The bible doesn't give a date for the return of Christ. If some people cooked one up..they were wrong on the date, but right about the event.

I predict that Jesus is going to come back sometime between the present moment and the point billions of years in the future when the sun reaches the end of its life and swells, ending all life on Earth.

Now, any time Jesus returns, I can claim I was right. Since no one can predict the time when Jesus returns, he is now incapable of returning while Earth can support Human life. Therefore he isn't returning.

Sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow.

I predict that you will eat and breathe. I was right! I should be revered as a seer of the future!

Then what's this list all about?

SOURCE

I'm not going to reverence them, and I'm certainly not going to reverence you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That method also needs distance to stars to get distance to other stars...etc. Same belief based hooey.

Nope, been over this. Luminosity of a Type Ia Supernova will Give us the distance measurement. Even the link you quoted me on Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia gives this Formula to find distance:

"Knowing the apparent magnitude (m) and absolute magnitude (M) of the star, one can calculate the distance (d, in parsecs) of the star using M-m = -5log(d/10) "​

...defeated yet again dad! -_-

The luminosity cannot help you if distances are not known. Period. It cannot give distances...only combining already accepted beliefs like stars on a chart that are so far away or big...etc can the info matter.

We verify distance with other methods and make sure they work repeatedly before using them elsewhere, so your point is bunk due to steadfast denial and ignorance.

Spectra can't tell distances..you get that much?

Except you're wrong for the reasons above - discarded.

I thought it could behave as either wave or particle? The issue is not how it behaves here in time.

It behaves as both a wave and particle for the purposes of quantum mechanics. Without the wave part of duality, you wouldn't be able to see it. It isn't classical mechanics that governs quantum particles so it's never one or the other, quantum particles and electromagnetic radiation exhibit characteristics of both.

Crazy claim.How would you know what no time or different time would do to light, or how fast it traveled?

How fast does light travel at? It has a cosmic speed limit, so no matter how fast it goes, if there's no time then there's no speed. No time would also mean whatever would emit light is also not doing anything, therefore light wouldn't exist to not go anywhere in the first place. How do you not get this?

Light is susceptible to the Doppler Effect just like sound is, so any change in time will necessarily have an effect on that light. I've discussed it so many times that you can just go read about it from any of the previous posts I made.

You still assume that the cause of the redshifted (or blue) light results only from a movement away or towards us in space as we know it and time though. If the light was already shifted for other reasons by the time it entered our space and time, what you say could not apply. Or, if entering our fishbowl zone caused redshifting. Or, if ..etc etc etc.

By the way, expansion is mostly based on the idea that redshift must be caused the way we see it caused on earth. If we see redshifted stars they must be moving away...since they are supposed to be so far..they must be going real fast...etc etc. The billions of years also is derived from the same belief.

Another interesting question for far far stars is could they actually exist in the future rather than the far past as you thought, based on a uniform time!? Ha. You really don't know what you are looking at.

No, -_- we see exoplanets orbiting stars. Because of these orbits and the times involved in their orbits, we can see they're in the same timeframe we are otherwise we wouldn't see them orbiting where they should be orbiting!

I'm sorry dad, you just don't know what you're talking about. There are too many things we can see that just wouldn't be seen if there was even the remotest chance you were right.

The spectrum here that we see is IN time. What would cause light to appear shifted here would not be anything that our time or space would have caused. Whatever happens here is after the fact. Even if there was some shifting as you envision, we would not discern that from this end. You just don't know.

We know. We know because of the reasons discussed above, too bad you don't seem capable of understanding this...

No. By translating I do not mean become visible. I mean that light when in our fishbowl zone it assumes our time and space rules while here. But since you mention it, yes, there could be things in the different time zone of deep space (if time is different there) that might not BE visible here! You may have been seeing just a part of what is out there.

As for lensing appearing here years apart...that time is our time. Out there maybe it is no time or say just minutes or whatever rather than years.

Sure. There's probably heaps we haven't seen yet. What we do see (and there's a preponderance of it) matches with everything we know just too well. You'll have to provide very substantial evidence to get anyone to take your fairyland story seriously, I keep saying it but you don't seem to listen - what you're proposing just wouldn't work the way we actually see it here.

Here's a thought experiment that might help you understand why minutes there might be years here doesn't work:

Let's say we could HEAR an alien on another planet in this other time via some long range subspace radio. Let's also for the purposes of this thought exercise take your queue that a minute there would be a year here. If that alien was clapping his tentacles every second in his time, we wouldn't hear anything by the time the soundwaves travelled into our timeframe because the displacement will be well under our hearing threshold of 20Hz. In fact, if that alien was screaming at the highest part of our audible range in his timeframe (20kHz), when it got to us here, that high-pitched screaming soundwave would be reduced to one cycle every 31.5 minutes, well under our audible threshold of 20 cycles a second...

Visible light is in a much narrower band than audible sound is, so given electromagnetic radiation wavelengths would be stretched out to well outside any detectable spectrum whatoever (not just our visible spectrum), your position is untenable.

But WAIT! That's not all! Let's say some form of particle could magically translate into waveform perfectly within our viewable spectrum in exactly the way it would trick us by matching almost all of our laws of physics perfectly, the luminosity (measured in apparent magnitude, higher numbers are dimmer) would be so low as to be completely indetectable. Let me explain. Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky with an apparent magnitude of -1.0. Our sun is the brightest thing in the sky at -27.0 apparent magnitude. the faintest stars we can see with the naked eye has an apparent magnitude of 6.5. If the brightest star in our sky now (Sirius) was in your timeframe, it would have an apparent magnitude of 12.7 - well outside our visible spectrum! To put that into perspective, the Hubble Deep Field Image caught a handful of stars in frame, the brightest of which is USNO-A2.0 0600-01400432 with an apparent magnitude of 18.95 and that was an image requiring an exposure of around 135,000 seconds, or 37.5 hours of open shutter!

It isn't a linear scale either btw, the Sun with an apparent magnitude of -27 is about 400,000 times brighter than the full moon on -12.7. If our Sun were in this other time and we were getting light 'translated' into waveform from particle form (sorry physics, I'm so sorry!!) , the light would have an apparent magnitude of -6.

Double Fail on your part, no matter how you look at it...

False. We have no idea what light does out of our zone, as we have only seen it here!

Remember it is not a 'timeframe' as we know it. More like a time free zone.

Discarded for stupidity. We've been over this too many times now. a time-free zone wouldn't emit light, nothing would be happening there.

Circular since both methods use the same basis. The methods that are too far out for trigonometric parallax use the distances from trig parallax also.

No, they don't. Are you even reading my responses? Parallax is determined by mathematics, Spectroscopic Parallax is determined by physics and Type Ia Supernova is determined by luminosity measurement. Methods are calibrated on closer stars where all variables can be verified. How is that circular?? Otherwise this is Discarded as uncontested as well.

No. You can't since that requires distance also.
Show us any data from luminosity that helps you that requires no distance!

Type Ia Supernova.

As explained there is on basis that they all use. Atomic theory doesn't give distance. Unless you know how far away what you are seeing it, the data loses significance,

You're wrong and I've explained why above. Discarded for lack of contest and substance. Learn to read, or ask questions if you fail at understanding something.

Other timeframe? If time as we knew it only existed here, why would space without time be a timeframe. Even if time were different, why would parallax or luminosity look any different to us here? By the way show an example of parallax matching luminosity?

I've explained too many times this very thing. If my explanation above and all the other explanations and analogies I've given you don't make sense then you're just going to have to go back to school and learn how to comprehend, I guess.

Here's a set of lecture notes on Distances, Brightness and Luminosity as related to Astronomy. Please note slide 15 where the discussion on how Luminosity is independent of Distance. http://people.physics.tamu.edu/depoy/astr101TR/Notes/lecture9.pdf there's also various formulas provided for working these parameters out yourself. Last one, here's a good page that explains the spectrosopic readings, temperature output of stars and what we know about why it's so accurate. The Luminosities and Temperatures of Stars - good luck!

No. What if light for example outside of time here were not even a wave as it is here? What if the only way we saw light here was waves? That could not tell us about light in far space. You use fishbowl rules and time to imagine what things should be like where the stars are.

Discarded for absurdity. There's no evidence for this, so you might as well be talking about light being generated by whistling pixies.

Correction you only see them HERE IN TIME! Of course things take time here. Whatever we see from outside our time zone, is still IN time cause it must exist here to be seen.

There's no evidence for any of this so I find it futile supposing random unfounded nonsense. Discarded.

Absurd. Everything anyone sees is in time here. How could there be anomalies? It sure LOOKS like things take time HERE cause they do...HERE! Even when we see things from where maybe no time is, they take time HERE.

You know where there is next to no time? Black Holes! We don't see them doing anything. Discarded for all the incessantly made up rubbish...

We should take His word for it I guess. Or you get real confused real fast.

I'm not even sure there is a God, let alone seen one, or further, had one tell me what it wants of me...

Jesus is God and creator. We know what He was like. He came down here and let us know He exists. He gave us Scripture to tell us how we were created. When people ignore that, and gaze at stars till they get blue in the face and their minds get shortshifted, and things start to seem old and not created....don't blame God.

What God? I don't know what he's like, I don't know if he even exists, I'm far from convinced any God scriptured anything for anyone anywhere. If there is one then he needs to learn how to communicate properly, like the Universe and Reality does. Can't blame something that doesn't exist...

 

[dad]

We have a very decent idea how they were built.

Show us then.

You want evidence for a present state explanation, but then dismiss it because it's not past state.

I want to see the explanation and it's basis and premises.

And did you miss the bit where the article also said:

"Ksepka suspects that the bird, like the previous largest-flying-bird record-holder Argentavis magnificens (wingspan: 22 feet, or about three Michael Jordans), might have run downhill into a headwind or simply waited for a wind gust to take to the air."​

What part of this is implausible to you? Hills, gravity, air or running?

A bird as big as a small plane might get hungry waiting for a gust of wind.

Do you think this could not have happened in a DSP?

With an albatross? Sure. With the big monster bird big as a bus with feet too small to run? Maybe not.

So what? Do you think that objects that size are incapable of it?

They said it exceeded what models show is possible, no?

And of course, it was never looked at in any other way, was it?

Show us pics from a hill that include all the giant drawing in Peru?

Oh, you didn't read very much, did you? What's the VERY NEXT SENTENCE after that?

You tell us?

That's a pretty bad argument.

Taking things with a grain of salt, and not accepting everything someone says just because one thing may be correct is actually great advice.

 

[dad]

Nope, been over this. Luminosity of a Type Ia Supernova will Give us the distance measurement. Even the link you quoted me on Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia gives this Formula to find distance:

"Knowing the apparent magnitude (m) and absolute magnitude (M) of the star, one can calculate the distance (d, in parsecs) of the star using M-m = -5log(d/10) "​

...defeated yet again dad! -_

Hate to deflate your balloon, but absolute magnitude is needed.

" By hypothetically placing all objects at a standard reference distance from the observer, their luminosities can be directly compared on a magnitude scale. "


Absolute magnitude - Wikipedia

Very pathetic and circular. You claim to know distances by luminosity when all you do is assume distances first.

We verify distance with other methods and make sure they work repeatedly before using them elsewhere, so your point is bunk due to steadfast denial and ignorance.

Do it now then. Verify the distance to any star! Go ahead. Make my day.

It behaves as both a wave and particle for the purposes of quantum mechanics. Without the wave part of duality, you wouldn't be able to see it. It isn't classical mechanics that governs quantum particles so it's never one or the other, quantum particles and electromagnetic radiation exhibit characteristics of both.

Well, they do try to apply quantum realities to deep space last time I checked. If time affects those realities, then who knows what they are like in a deep space with no time? Your game it to try and enforce earth time everywhere for no reason other than some apparent strong urge to do so.

How fast does light travel at?

Where? Here? We know that. Light existing and moving in our time and space takes so much time to get so far!

It has a cosmic speed limit, so no matter how fast it goes,

False. Only where cosmic is defined as the fishbowl of the solar system area. Try to prove light travels the same 'speed' beyond here! I dare you.

if there's no time then there's no speed.

False. There is just no speed in time. The issue is whether anything could move. Anything that moves outside of time would not need time to move. (dad's rule number 14)

No time would also mean whatever would emit light is also not doing anything

False. It would just mean that no time was involved in the emission. You only see emissions here where time is needed. How would you be able to speak to a far place where time is not needed?

, therefore light wouldn't exist to not go anywhere in the first place. How do you not get this?

You made that up. We do not know how things would be with no time since we live in the fishbowl of time. Here we need time to exist, everything needs time to exist. Now if time was different, or not existing at all as we know it, anything thAT MOVED WOULD SIMPLY NOT TAKE OR INVOLVE TIME LIKE IT DOES HERE.

Light is susceptible to the Doppler Effect just like sound is,

In the fishbowl, of course it is.

so any change in time will necessarily have an effect on that light

No. We are not talking about a change IN time. We are talking no time at all as we think of it. Or maybe a different time and space. That would not be a change in OUR time.

No, -_- we see exoplanets orbiting stars.

No you don't that is a joke. You see something orbiting something else. How big or how far or how the star works or where it came from you do not know. You just thought you did.

Because of these orbits and the times involved in their orbits, we can see they're in the same timeframe

Hilarious. Because we see things in time here, you claim there must also be time there!

otherwise we wouldn't see them orbiting where they should be orbiting!

False logic. Just because you may see the moon looking purple if you look at it through a purple glass telescope, doesn't mean it is purple. Just because you look IN TIME at things outside of time doesn't make them IN TIME! Elementary.

Sure. There's probably heaps we haven't seen yet.

Science even claims it sees a small percent of what is there, the rest they say must be weird dark stuff that is invisible! How anyone believes the God ignoring dreamers is beyond me!

What we do see (and there's a preponderance of it) matches with everything we know just too well.

With your methodology based on your belief system you force a match to the little you can see!

 

[Kylie]

Then what's this list all about?

It's about showing that people can make predictions about the end of the world that are wrong, despite dad's claim to the contrary.

I'm not going to reverence them, and I'm certainly not going to reverence you.

Of course not, because anything that disagrees with you can take a hike, can't it?

 

[Kylie]

Show us then.

Already did. Post 1541. But you ignore that, just as you have ignored everything that does not fit your little worldview.

So just like I said, you demand evidence, but then reject the evidence that says you are wrong. You are the very definition of closed-minded, and that is why I won't waste my time coming up with evidence for you.

I want to see the explanation and it's basis and premises.

You got it. You ignored it. So why should I waste my time?

A bird as big as a small plane might get hungry waiting for a gust of wind.

You know there are parts of the world that are very windy. Particularly around coasts and cliffs. Perfect habitat for, I dunno, maybe a SEABIRD?

With an albatross? Sure. With the big monster bird big as a bus with feet too small to run? Maybe not.

Is your entire argument to be built on your incredulity?

They said it exceeded what models show is possible, no?

Surely these are larger and heavier than the bird in question, yes? So why can they do it, but a smaller bird can't?

Show us pics from a hill that include all the giant drawing in Peru?

The landscape of the Nazca lines: hills and streams at the end of the pampa | Nazca lines | Nazca | Travel Story and Pictures from Peru

Gee, look at all the nearby hills.

And you seem to be under the impression that they were designed for HUMANS to look at them from the sky. Did you stop to think for a moment that maybe the Nazca people made them for their gods to look at?

You tell us?

Wow, are you really that stubborn that you refuse to read the whole article? You only want the parts that support you, and you pretend that the bits that disagree don't exist?

The very next sentence describes a method for the birds to get aloft, doesn't it? Oh, but you find it implausible, being an expert on how birds get into the air and all, so obviously that can't be true!

Taking things with a grain of salt, and not accepting everything someone says just because one thing may be correct is actually great advice.

But what you do is to dismiss anything that disagrees with your preconceived conclusions. You don't bother to actually look at conflicting evidence to judge it on its merits, you just toss it away because you can't face the possibility that you might be wrong. You don't want anything to threaten you fragile world view, so you refuse to put it to the test.

 

[dad]

Already did. Post 1541.

That post has no support whatsoever in it.

You know there are parts of the world that are very windy. Particularly around coasts and cliffs. Perfect habitat for, I dunno, maybe a SEABIRD?

It would make better sense if the nature was such the the poor thing could land.

Surely these are larger and heavier than the bird in question, yes? So why can they do it, but a smaller bird can't?

Maybe the big bird didn't have a team of en pushing it down a hill?

The landscape of the Nazca lines: hills and streams at the end of the pampa | Nazca lines | Nazca | Travel Story and Pictures from Peru

Gee, look at all the nearby hills.

So people carved drawings miles long best seen from above so they could get a partial glimpse from climbing a hill? Maybe. Maybe they jumped off the hill and flew somehow also...who knows?

And you seem to be under the impression that they were designed for HUMANS to look at them from the sky. Did you stop to think for a moment that maybe the Nazca people made them for their gods to look at?

Ha. You'll believe anything else but the obvious eh?

The very next sentence describes a method for the birds to get aloft, doesn't it? Oh, but you find it implausible, being an expert on how birds get into the air and all, so obviously that can't be true!

I know. They could jump off a big hill. Better not stop down in water or a valley for a bite to eat huh?

 

[Kylie]

That post has no support whatsoever in it.

And your posts are full of support, of course.

It would make better sense if the nature was such the the poor thing could land.

Prove to me that it couldn't.

Maybe the big bird didn't have a team of en pushing it down a hill?

Yeah, maybe it just had to run downhill... *Rolls eyes*

So people carved drawings miles long best seen from above so they could get a partial glimpse from climbing a hill? Maybe. Maybe they jumped off the hill and flew somehow also...who knows?

Is it just me, but are your arguments getting even worse?

Ha. You'll believe anything else but the obvious eh?

Yeah, a complete change in the laws of the universe is much more plausible than other cultures having differing religious beliefs...

I know. They could jump off a big hill. Better not stop down in water or a valley for a bite to eat huh?

Do you realise that seabirds get their water from the fish they eat? They are also able to drink seawater and excrete the extra salt.

I am constantly amazed how you feel justified in making proclamations about things that you obviously don't know anything about.[/quote]

 

[dad]

And your posts are full of support, of course.



Prove to me that it couldn't.



Yeah, maybe it just had to run downhill... *Rolls eyes*



Is it just me, but are your arguments getting even worse?



Yeah, a complete change in the laws of the universe is much more plausible than other cultures having differing religious beliefs...



Do you realise that seabirds get their water from the fish they eat? They are also able to drink seawater and excrete the extra salt.

I am constantly amazed how you feel justified in making proclamations about things that you obviously don't know anything about.

Funny I see gulls in the water. If they were monster sized with feet too small, and couldn't get out of the water, well, what do you think they did, eat flying fish only, as they were aloft for days?

No sense arguing we do not know. Those extinct creatures seem to make better sense in a different nature. The long lifespans of the bible and Sumer make better sense also in a DSP. Having a potential to fly or move ridiculously huge stones also makes sense in a DSP more than here. You chose to limit all possible explanations to current nature ones.

Suffice it to say you sure do not know, and do not have any science to back up your imagination.

Closed mindedness is not a great way to get at the truth by the way.

 

[Kylie]

Funny I see gulls in the water. If they were monster sized with feet too small, and couldn't get out of the water, well, what do you think they did, eat flying fish only, as they were aloft for days?

No sense arguing we do not know. Those extinct creatures seem to make better sense in a different nature. The long lifespans of the bible and Sumer make better sense also in a DSP. Having a potential to fly or move ridiculously huge stones also makes sense in a DSP more than here. You chose to limit all possible explanations to current nature ones.

Suffice it to say you sure do not know, and do not have any science to back up your imagination.

Closed mindedness is not a great way to get at the truth by the way.

So instead of actually addressing my point, you just make a blanket statement that is just an argument from incredulity.

You got nothing.

 

[dad]

So instead of actually addressing my point, you just make a blanket statement that is just an argument from incredulity.

You got nothing.

Your point is that you insist on blindly using the present nature to explain all the things in the past that might be better explained with a different nature. That all you got?

 

[Kylie]

Your point is that you insist on blindly using the present nature to explain all the things in the past that might be better explained with a different nature. That all you got?

Your point is that you insist on blindly using a different nature to explain all the things in the past that are perfectly explained with a present nature. That all you got?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Your point is that you insist on blindly using a different nature to explain all the things in the past that are perfectly explained with a present nature. That all you got?

...as far as I can tell, yeah, that's about all Dad has.

It's a novel argument. Of course it completely destroys any positions he would take since it can easily be used against those positions, but Dad doesn't seem to care about logical consistency in regards to this.

And the bestest part is that Dad seems blissfully unaware that anyone whose sat through a freshman philosophy class already sees the foundational problems with his debate point.

 

[AV1611VET]

That all you got?

I got something:

Prior to the Fall, the universe ran on perpetual motion.

 

[dad]

Your point is that you insist on blindly using a different nature to explain all the things in the past that are perfectly explained with a present nature. That all you got?

False. Pathetically explained by a present nature.

Who cares about foolish what if scenarios that religiously try to prop up a same state past belief which runs against the very words of God?

 

[dad]

..

It's a novel argument. Of course it completely destroys any positions he would take since it can easily be used against those positions,

Absurdly false. Scripture cannot reasonably be used against a DSP. Nor would anything that existed in a different nature past possibly be used against there having been one!

And the bestest part is that Dad seems blissfully unaware that anyone whose sat through a freshman philosophy class already sees the foundational problems with his debate point.

Eve if true that would be better than being blissfully unaware that freshman philosophy is like mickey mouse fishbowl philosophy!

 

[Obliquinaut]

Absurdly false.

Absurdly false? Really? LOL

Scripture cannot reasonably be used against a DSP.

Special pleading.

Eve if true that would be better than being blissfully unaware that freshman philosophy is like mickey mouse fishbowl philosophy!

I love it when people denigrate things they have no experience of. If you had come from the position of having actually taken a philosophy class and actually were able to explain why you reject just portions of these topics it would be much more impressive.

Instead you heap scorn out of what appears to be nearly universal ignorance of any of the topics that touch on your position.

And I'm the one who is being absurd?