The Age of the Universe

[Davian]

You implied in your post to Doveman that more knowledge in astronomy would necessarily resolve the dilemma,

More knowledge may help him understand the concepts involved. Whether he accepts them or not is up to him.

but that hasn't been my experience.

I have no idea what level of knowledge you have of mainstream cosmology; it is hard to see through the clouds of smoke from the burning straw-men.

That was the part I responded to in your post, not the unlikely possibility that you (or I) are likely to instantly change anyone's mind.

I got from his response to me that he had that sort of expectation.

 

[Michael]

More knowledge may help him understand the concepts involved. Whether he accepts them or not is up to him.

Yep, and only he has control over that personal choice.

I have no idea what level of knowledge you have of mainstream cosmology; it is hard to see through the clouds of smoke from the burning straw-men.

Well, I'll bet that I'm the only one of the two of us who has published papers on the topic of astronomy and solar physics.

I've debated these idea in cyberspace for more than a decade at this point. I've found all sorts of skeletons in the closet too, like the fact that near the end of his career Hubble himself preferred a static universe/tired light explanation for photon redshift, and Alfven called magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience" about 1/2 dozen times at the conference where he made the whole concept obsolete and irrelevant. You don't hear the mainstream discussing those minor problems with their claims.

That doesn't stop the mainstream from trying to ride their coattails either. They pretty much misrepresent the facts the very instant that they start talking about "Doppler Shift" with respect to Lambda-CMD. It's a whole bait and switch routine from day one which is why Doveman and every other logical human being fails to grasp the problem at first. It's the *mainstream's* fault from the start, and their misuse of the term Doppler Shift, not the novice who's trying to understand the basic concepts.

 

[Davian]

Yep, and only he has control over that personal choice.

I dunno. Can you consciously choose to believe that mainstream cosmology has it all figured out for the next three days, then choose to switch back to whatever you believe now?

Well, I'll bet that I'm the only one of the two of us who has published papers on the topic of astronomy and solar physics.

Then you completely undermine any credibility that might give you with your straw-burning activities here.

I've debated these idea in cyberspace for more than a decade at this point. I've found all sorts of skeletons in the closet too, like the fact that near the end of his career Hubble himself preferred a static universe/tired light explanation for photon redshift, and Alfven called magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience" about 1/2 dozen times at the conference where he made the whole concept obsolete and irrelevant. You don't hear the mainstream discussing those minor problems with their claims.

That doesn't stop the mainstream from trying to ride their coattails either. They pretty much misrepresent the facts the very instant that they start talking about "Doppler Shift" with respect to Lambda-CMD. It's a whole bait and switch routine from day one which is why Doveman and every other logical human being fails to grasp the problem at first. It's the *mainstream's* fault from the start, and their misuse of the term Doppler Shift, not the novice who's trying to understand the basic concepts.

I was never promised that these concepts would be easy to understand.

 

[Michael]

I dunno. Can you consciously choose to believe that mainstream cosmology has it all figured out for the next three days, then choose to switch back to whatever you believe now?

Me? No.

Then you completely undermine any credibility that might give you with your straw-burning activities here.

The mainstream handed Hannes Alfven the Nobel Prize for his development of MHD theory, and then they promptly ignored everything that he ever wrote about our mostly plasma universe, including over a *hundred* published papers and a whole textbook on the topic. I hardly think that I had much "street cred" to begin with, certainly not at Alfven's level, or Peratt's level, or Lerner's level. If they ignored all of them, I'm sure they'd ignore me too, with or without my occasional public strawman burnings.

I was never promised that these concepts would be easy to understand.

They are technically only 'hard to understand' because the mainstream doesn't have a clue what they are talking about in the first place. They can't even collectively name so much as a single source of "dark energy", yet that makes up the vast majority of their entire theory! It's hard to understand their fascination with WIMP theories too, particularly after their blowouts at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc. None of it makes any sense because 95+ percent of their claims are *supernatural* in origin, and pretty much *completely undefined* and poorly understood even by the mainstream themselves!

 

[Davian]

Me? No.

Then what was this "choice" that you alluded to?

The mainstream handed Hannes Alfven the Nobel Prize for his development of MHD theory, and then they promptly ignored everything that he every wrote about our mostly plasma universe, including over a *hunded* published papers and a whole textbook on the topic. I hardly think that I had much "street cred" to begin with, certainly not at Alfven's level, or Peratt's level, or Lerner's level. If they ignored all of them, I'm sure they'd ignore me too, with or without my occasional public strawman burnings.

You're right. You probably did not have any credibility.

They are technically only 'hard to understand' because the mainstream doesn't have a clue what they are talking about in the first place. They can't even collectively name so much as a single source of "dark energy", <snip>

They can't answer questions that do not apply to the theory? Burn em!

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

 

[Loudmouth]

That's why God has Michael here

Michael thinks God is a giant plasma brain in the sky that he telepathically communicates with. If that is the horse you want to hitch your wagon to, good luck.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you fail to realize is God has you here for purpose as well and that purpose is to get to the truth. Your constant denial causes us believers to really question our beliefs. Unfortunately for you, when a Christian really questions their beliefs, it only makes their faith stronger, simply because their faith is based in truth.

What objective evidence demonstrates that it is the truth? Or is it the truth simply because you assert it?

 

[Michael]

Then what was this "choice" that you alluded to?

Where did I do that again? You seem to be the one that is fixated on choice, not me.

You're right. You probably did not have any credibility.

Nah. I'm just a lowly computer programmer by trade, not even a real "scientists' as far as they are concerned. If they ignored Alfven and Hubble, they'll definitely ignore a programmer from Mt. Shasta.

They can't answer questions that do not apply to the theory? Burn em!

Like atheists never do that as it relates to the topic of God?

It wouldn't be so bad if they only had only *one* supernatural external agent, but they need no less than *four* of them for crying out loud. It's like a bad polytheistic supernatural religion where nothing is really defined or understood. "Dark energy works in mysterious ways" apparently. Ditto for the dark matter deity, the inflation god, and his sidekick the expanding space genie.

 

[Michael]

Michael thinks God is a giant plasma brain in the sky that he telepathically communicates with. If that is the horse you want to hitch your wagon to, good luck.

It's sure beats betting the farm on a supernatural creation mythos with four invisible, and highly impotent friends like you do.

 

[Michael]

What objective evidence demonstrates that it is the truth? Or is it the truth simply because you assert it?

What objective evidence demonstrates that 'space expansion" has any tangible effect on a photon's momentum again?

 

[Davian]

Not as I see it he's not. He is the lab, the light, and even the awareness in the observers too.

I know this one. He is the force that enables us to have flush toilets.

It's all the same (one) God.

Just not in any way that can be made coherent.

 

[Michael]

I know this one. He is the force that enables us to have flush toilets.

Just not in any way that can be made coherent.

Well, at least it's coherent enough for you to ridicule apparently. Ridicule the idea all you like, but even Einstein embraced a "Spinoza" type notion of God.

 

[Davian]

Where did I do that again? You seem to be the one that is fixated on choice, not me.

Post #562

Nah. I'm just a lowly computer programmer by trade, not even a real "scientists' as far as they are concerned. If they ignored Alfven and Hubble, they'll definitely ignore a programmer from Mt. Shasta.



Like atheists never do that as it relates to the topic of God?
<snip false dichotomy>

The actions of others does nothing to excuse yours.

However, I do not see how you can claim the straw-man argument complaint for gods. You would need to first objectively establish what/which god, and define in some testable manner its exact characteristics in order to show that the argument was wrong.

For example, if I say that the Christian God is only a character in a book, who here can demonstrate that I am wrong?

 

[Davian]

Well, at least it's coherent enough for you to ridicule apparently. Ridicule the idea all you like, but even Einstein embraced a "Spinoza" type notion of God.

Tell me what Einstein thought of religious beliefs in personal gods.

 

[zardak]

You could say the same about accepting Heliocentrism.

If your theology can't stand up to reality, the blame doesn't reside with reality.

The problem is your just making 'blank' statements, which is quite boring.

The fact is that heliocentrism doesn't stand-up to reality, and reality doesn't stand-up to THE TRUTH. So where have you got to go now? LOL

 

[Davian]

The problem is your just making 'blank' statements, which is quite boring.

The fact is that heliocentrism doesn't stand-up to reality, and reality doesn't stand-up to THE TRUTH. So where have you got to go now? LOL

Geocentrism

• Davian
• Jul 1, 2015

 

[Doveaman]

Do it then. Change Doveaman's mind about the age of the universe. Pick whatever age you want that is different that what he currently believes. You have one post to do it in.

Why would you want him to do that?

Do you have any idea what I believe about the age of the universe?

More knowledge may help him understand the concepts involved.

More knowledge about what?

I don't care.

Neither do I.

 

[Davian]

Why would you want him to do that?

I didn't. He offered.

Do you have any idea what I believe about the age of the universe?

No.

More knowledge about what?

The subject of this thread.

Neither do I.

What then was the intent of this thread?

 

[Doveaman]

The subject of this thread.

The subject of this thread is about the scientific view of the universe, not my view.

What then was the intent of this thread?

The thread is about the scientific view of the universe, not my view.

Did you even read the OP.

 

[Chriliman]

FYI, if you entertain the possibility that God may be a physical entity, one which encompasses the entire visible universe and beyond, then everything that we see, touch, taste, smell and experience may end up being "objective and verifiable evidence for Him'.

It really depends on how one *defines* God.

I do believe that God sustains the universe as we see it, but this is only temporary in order to fulfill His will.

Isaiah 65:17
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind"

God acted in more "physical" ways in the Old Testament, but after Jesus sacrifice, everyone who believes in Jesus has access to the Holy Spirit, which is the primary way God now communicates to His followers.

The new heaven and earth will not be "physical" in the way we understand physical, it will be spiritual and we will have new spiritual bodies.

2 Corinthians 5
"For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands"

2 Peter 3:13
"But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells"

God will dwell among us in the new Jerusalem.

Revelation 21:2
"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

I would warn to be careful how much stock you put in this physical world we all dwell in now, for evil still resides here, this is why it must be destroyed and made new.

Ephesians 2:2
"In which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience"

If you believe in Jesus, scripture is your best friend because the Holy Spirit confirms it as truth.