the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[Danyc]

No, you are looking just at the body. I might ask, then, what are the differences between you, and a dead man? You might look the same, to a great extent. Animals were not given the dominion over earth, and the gift of free will, far as I can tell.
Physical differences are not that important to the spiritual minded man. Any more than the physical body is, because it will die. God made physical bodies to get around this world, so why would I question any similar components in creatures physically??

It is not just intelligence, it is spiritual.

I ask, then, why every component of our intelligence is physical. There is nothing otherworldly or spiritual needed to run our bodies. Like I said before: God is not needed for this world to begin, run, and end. He is unneeded.

This point is further proven by the fact that when the brain, a physical thing, experiences physical harm and damage, we can sometimes lose almost all brain activity. Everything we do, think, say, uses the brain. None of it relies on a spiritual side. If it did, then physical damage should not impair such abilities.

And you don't think animals have free will? I'm pretty sure they do. An animal can do whatever it chooses to. They are not run by instinct alone. At least, not all of them.

You can say that again! And, in talking science, you are so limited, that a meaningful conversation cannot be had about the true nature of man, or the universe. Thanks for that.

This is a disagreement in beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven, so it is pointless.

We were made a little lower than the angels, and they are not animals. Why would we be??

Maybe because animals just might be below angels in status?

Both what? You cannot fight the different universe creation.

Sure I can. As easily as you are fighting the same universe creation.

Unfortunately, you have yet to offer evidence for a same state past.

Tell me this, Dad. Why must we offer evidence, but you don't have to? Sounds like a big double standard to me.

If only the bible really holds the clues to the future and past, is it any wonder God gave us a book?

Cannot prove the Bible = no credibility.

If you believe in Jesus you already have salvation. I don't know that He cares less if you fall back into Christianity, whatever that is. He probably cares that we grow spiritually, and my guess is that that requires getting real.

Once again, he would rather me not believe in him at all, than me not really being sure? How does that make any sense at all?

I am not one that really is into playing games. I think we ought to get serious with God, and find out He is real.

Too bad that's impossible. God cannot be proven.











You see Dad, no matter how much science you and other creationists try to use to prove God, it all comes back to God. Who is not physical, therefore he cannot be proven. End of story, you're wasting our time.

 

[NailsII]

The fast plant growth, I deduce from the following. Plants were created only days before we ate the fruit off the tree, and the garden was PLANTED. Also, rapid plant growth was needed to feeed the animals on the ark, and after they got off. A bird was sent out off the ark. No trees. A week later, another one, and lo and behold, a fresh twig from a tree.

A much more logical explaination is that it is only a story, one of a local but immense flood and the survivors though the whole world was flooded. Add a few generations, and a bit of creativity and you have an exagerated myth ground into folklore.
Or, if it did happen, then the trees survived and were covered by the flood one week, then as the waters receded they became visable again. No need to break the laws of physics on this one.

My airways did not come from a fish despite your strange determination to blow any similarities out of all proportion. You have an agenda. In no way is anything you say evidence of evolving from a fish, that is patently absurd.

Denial desn't change facts I'm afraid.
Trace the path of your cranial nerve - it tells its own evolutionary story; criss-crossing around and looking all badly created.......

I think the person was demonstrating that it did not even have the same purposes. Deal with it.

No, you have a demented imagination.

you mean you never looked, or just think that God moves in mysterious ways.

It looks designed to me. Have a boo at this, and tell me it is an accident.

Who said anything about an accident?
My line of evidence centred on the structures inside the human body.
She just looks like a beautiful ape to me.

So????? It, what, started at the fantasy pond? No. Moot point.

Then explain why experiments on a bacterium can provide insights into human genetic illnesses which are not caused by said bacterium.
When you can do this, the point is mute. until then....

Are you talking to yourself here, or do you intend to explain your musings?

I'd rather you explain why evolutionary theory works and benefits our lives.

Great. Great.

Care to try again?

Well, if they could use the genes for something, in the created state, I would think you were wrong. I have no reason to assume that is not the case.
As for educated retort, that is only needed if and when you provide concise and evidenced claims.

Can you explain why 3% of our DNA is reserved for olifactory genes, when (compared to other mammals) our sense of smell is so poor?
If I hinted that we evolved tri-colour vision as apes and this directed us more towards being visual creatures, would it become more apparant?

Guess you don't even rank that much savy.

I wonder if he thinks that the jury is still out on WMD, or should he just ask God where they are.

How many apes were in your school? How many countries do apes control? How many posts on this thread were done by an ape??? They are just an animal.

We are apes, and as they are just animals, then so are we.

Nor do you. So how is you you stick it in a same state past, and have it behave as modern viri?? Don't you think you should have a clue before making a claim?? I only bring it up to illustrate your unbased chatter.

What is unbased is your idea that a virus has ever been anything else or has acted in a different manner.
Specifically, you need to demonstrate how humans and chimps have been infected IN THE SAME GENETIC LOCATION by the same virus, leaving only the same genetic signiture - 200,000 times.

Prophesy. How nice. PO state based prophesy, no less. Your pitiful projections are worthless unless backed up.

No, evidence based reasoning and deduction.

Nothing needs to be debunked that is just made up. Otherwise we need to debunk the tooth fairy as well. No. We need to look at reality, and what the actual facts are. Until then, don't expect to be worthy of debunking.

Maybe they should teach that at school, then we'd all be atheists in a few years.

I don't need evidence for the physical effects of sin. It affects just about everything. As mentioned, the main cause of HIV spread in S. A. is sin.

But your specific point was that sin is a major contributer to genetic abnormalities.
i asked for evidence, but I know I'll never get any.
So consider this: if you're right, then the countries that sin the most shoul dhave the highest proportion of genetic abnormalities.
Since worshipping other gods is a sin, then China, Japan, Iran etc should be littered with them (compared to a Chrsitian nation)
If I look really hard, do you think I will find any such patterns?

False, it is all life that it tries to explain without God. Face it. That is how they get to the imaginary pond, not by some evidence.

Oh dear. Seige menality.
So where does theistic evolution stand on this?

It is exactly right, Darwinism tries to explain all created life, from an imaginary point, that has no god. Just because it happens to use the actual creation trait of the ability to evolve, does not validate the fantasy in any way whatsoever. It simply was the ignorant, inspired excuse for the anti God nightmares that oozed out of the evo minds, and hearts.

Actually, Darwin's work does not discount the possibility of theistic creation - but modern evidence suggests it would have to be unicellular and have taken place around 3.5 billion years ago.
Whilst his work shook his own faith quite considerably, i would have thought that his schooling in the church would have gnawed away at his faith even more.

You are not the jusfge of common sense, as your blind faith in your silly myths demonstrate clearly.

Do you realise how silly that sounds coming from the brain of a creationist?

Maybe a few seconds, before I could change channels.

Then you have no idea what you have missed.
Plenty is available on youtube, maybe you should skip a quote-mine session and watch a little bit. The argument sketch is particularly apt.

Try using sound comments, backed by evidence, and presented in a clear way. That way, it is sure to get shot down real fast, saving everyone time.

OK, why do we find fish in devonian rocks with a shoulder, a humerous, a radius & ulna, and wrist bones with digits?
Did god want fish to do press ups 375 million years ago?

Cainnan was the one that got the curse, and punishment, as I recall. There has to be a reason for that.

And the reason was?
On a par with being killed for laughing at a bald man.

I'll back you up there, if you need a witness.

Thanks. Maybe you should take a look at yourown wiring sometime, I imagine you have the same problem.

No. It is anti intelligent. Ridiculous, and religiously anti God. It is an offense to the intelligence, and dignity of man. Besides, I think there was plenty around before this universe. This was just a week's work. It may have been created from nothing in this universe, because it didn't yet exist. I don't know that we know that it had to all come from nothing anywhere?

No, it is just where the evidence has led so far.
It may be wrong, but only future scientific discoveries will unlock such a problem.

 

[NailsII]

I am familiar enough with apes, and men to know there are differences. I mentioned a few. Ask any ape to confirm or deny, if you can't take my word for it.

No, we are in no way an animal, except in a physical way of thinking, in some men's minds. Angels are not animals either, by the way.

Apes have one massive advantage over us subset of humans - they don't pray, or get sucked in by preachers who fleece the most vunerable.

By the way dad, angels are not real.

Evolve some integrity, will you?

 

[dad]

Yes, in the function I gave as an example works in my example. It doesn't work if we apply your spiritual nonsense to it any more than it would if we did the more mundane thing of dropping it off a table on the moon.

Thank you. Then why offer something that cannot reach up into the heavens, and deal with what is being discussed??

Having got that out of the way, the point is that one letter represents different values, as long as the variables it depends on vary.

But how much they vary is the issue, as to whether we can apply fishbowl functions.

Maths works, full stop. If maths didn't work, then we would be able to find a contradiction in it. This has actually happened once or twice in maths, it produced a kind of mathematical revolution.

Of course math works, so does a baby spoon work. Now, the trick is to get them to work on the SN discussed in the thread.

In this case, though, we're dealing with such an abstract case that you can't get out of it. If we represent the speed of light as a function depending on some variables then it doesn't matter whether it varies or not - we can accomodate both situations.

Really now?

So you don't understand. I'll give you an example.

Now, suppose, instead of looking at stars, we're looking at cars. We have car A, and we know that its top speed is 100km/h. Now, we want to know how far away it is, so measure the time it takes to travel over some angle that we can calculate, as we calculated the angle of the rings in the sky.
So, in our example, we can just make up any numbers we like, so let's suppose that it travels over an angle of 1 degree in 3 seconds. Then the distance of that line we're arguing over is 83 metres. If we see 83 metres as being 1 degree then we know that the car was about 2.4 km away.

Cars have a top speed that is regulated quite well by the world we live in, so any variables are only within a certain framework, or, I suppose we can say, fishbowl. You need to really solidly reason, and evidence that the SN is within the rules and variables of this earth's laws, and state of man's universe.

Now, all of this was done with a fixed speed of car. Now suppose that we turn around and observe a different car, whose speed we don't know. Again it crosses 1 degree in 3 seconds. So, we call its speed v and we say that the distance of the line in question is 3 seconds * v where we must remember to express v in m/s.
You just told us that we need to know the speed to get anywhere. Not so. The distance we're arguing about is 3*v. So the distance to this car is 1.5*v/0.017455, or:

But the *v in the triangle of lines used to claim a distance is all assumed to be the same. Therefore, it matters whether the mystery line that clinches the PO distance is bound to the same rules as the other lines, such as from earth to there.
That you have not established yet.

By basic trig. In the SN case, we have different numbers, but the maths works the same. You end up with the distance from here to the supernova being some number multiplied by the speed of light as it traveled from the core to the ring.

Is this all clear so far?

It is clear that you want to apply the PO light speed for the crucial line. At least you want to apply the same rules for light speed, but I see no real conclusive reason we need to do that yet. As pointed out, other questions were not even addressed. For example, I think it was you that claimed that we know that the core lights up first. If it was a haze for years, how would we know that??

We see the core light up, then rings light up.

Ah, there you go again. Support that.

We can work out the orientation of the rings in relation to the core, and we know that they are associated with the core.

Well, what is the nature of that association, that is the question? Why is it that they claim they were there long before the 'explosion' when nobody ever saw them? Prove it. I don't believe it.

We can understand that the core will produce bursts of light using physics, but not the ring. Put all of this together, what do you get.

Theoretically, IF it all obeyed the same state laws. In reality, what do we actually see? -Besides the missing neutron star that was expected by science, but just ain't there.

I can think of two things. Firstly, the same proof that the light from the sun travels the same speed to earth as it does to elsewhere in the solar system.

Well, our solar system is just not good enough to speak of all the universe. I think we can agree local light travels at a known rate.

Or that light travels at the same speed from a torch to your eyes as it does to someone elses.

Same as above.

Secondly, the fact that it is the same core, and the same process, that is producing the light.

You call it a core. In reality, what is it we see? An hourglass thingie in the middle of the rings. Looks like a man's head with big ears in a dressing room mirror to me, almost. (now don't take too seriously). I mean if your black hole, and neutron star were there, I might like that word core more.

If you light a match, it would be like saying that you think that the light going out sidewards travels at a different speed than the light going towards your eyes. That's stupid.

No, I would look at the observations, and realize we know what to expect there.

 

[dad]

Now who's caught up in the wrong 'state'?

Because all you can see around is created (computer, monitor, car, television etc. ) you assume that everything complex must also have been created by an intelligent being.

You are fooling no-one except yourself.

If you think you would be fooled to see evolution as a created trait, that is an opinion. Not one you can support at all. Yes, intelligently designed things tell us something. And an intelligently designed computer program, a part using God's creation, that comes out as intelligent tells me something as well. Obviously. Your only recourse is to make evolution something other than a creation trait. You can't do that. That leaves you in no position to fool anyone.

 

[dad]

Your myths originated in the desert. Evidence can be found in museams, try taking a look sometime.

One needs to know what one is looking at. Your myth originated in the minds of foolish men.

Do I need to show you the difference between opinion and logical conclusion as well?

No. You need to demonstrate you are capable of logic, based on more than pipe dreams.

Humans have body hair, vestigal body hair. Unborn humans grow a full coat of hair in the womb which is shed.

"Each hair of the lanugo is shed one by one and is then swallowed by the baby. The tiny hairs join mucus, bile, and other products to form a black substance called meconium. Just after birth, this meconium is excreted by the newborn in its first bowel movement."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/07/the_odd_body_nearly_naked_ape/
Sounds like you are talking about a feature of birth that is not monkey like to me. We eat our hair, and poop it out, after all, we don't need it. So?

As humans had clothes in early biblical time, they did not require a full coat of mammalian fur. Also, may I point out that civilisation as we know it began after the last ice age, which is why you cannot find evidence of an ice age that doesn't pre-date the bible.

Don't be silly. The bible was written after the ice age as well. As for what we required, that is another story. Some feel that we were sort of clothed with a spiritual light. They realized they were naked after the fall. Let's see a monkey top that!

Our body hair is the remnants of what covers an ape, it is one of a number of small peices of evidence that suggests we evolved from apes.

Well, no, not at all. That is your twisted preference on how to look at it. What if, for example, that hair used to work with the spiritual light that formed, some feel, a covering?
Or, what if we found out that the hair that was eaten had some other good purpose?
Or, what if human gestation used to be less time, and now, for some reason, being so long, some hair is involved?
Or,,,,etc? Your wild animalistic ideas are simply not of any particular worth at all.

Unfortunatley the world doesn't work like that.
You need evidence to counter a theory.

And evidence to make one fly. The same past is not a theory, it is merely an underlying assumption. Therefore any so called theory depending on that state is not in need of any countering by evidence. Obviously.

First provide evidence that the whole world has been flooded - as that will be your argument

Well, these embedded stones might go toward that, at least they suggest it.

So show me what rock formations occur under a massive flood that lasts 140 days - and show me where I can find them in the same strata on every continent.

Show me a place undisturbed by massive continental sliding, mountain building, the ice age, and etc??

No need for me to be defensive.

That's what you think.

I read this, and I would be suprised if no-one had tried to pick holes in it.
It is just one line of reasoning, and doesn't prove anything.

But when other evidence is considered, a picture emerges - and it is one of common descent.
At best all your post does is accuse the guy of jumping the gun a little, of treating one piece of evidence as the whole picture.

Well, it shows that the rabid little opinion in some blog is not the only kid on the block.

What is more interesting is how related species share genes for venom - whether they poduce venom or not. These vestigal traits are evidence of evolution, and not evidence for creation.

Well, that is interesting, in that all that is needed is for the need to arise, in this changing world of yesterday, and the inbuilt genes can tweak on, and perk up into action. In heaven, the snakes will not be poison. So they will simply evolve to tweak off the stuff. So??

If the ark event occured 50 million years ago, I might agree.

Ah, a tacit admission that it fits the evidence. (except for the silly myth based dating that goes on)

And do I really need to point out that a skink evolving into an insect would pretty much debunk evolution?

Well, it would seem from the evidences, that the adapting went a certain way. That is as predicted by a created kind start model!!! The evidence mounts!

Again, you sidestep the question so I will repeat it.
Quote:
But they pray, and they kill, and they repent..... The bible says that's ok, they'll still go to heaven. Can you bame them for playing that game?

It says a lot of things, I must have missed that one. If a man accepts God's spirit inside, they are not going to be doing much killing. Strawman.

And He is not required for a functioning universe.

Says you, who know next to nothing about it.

No, I merely provided an example of how moral behaviour can develop in a species with limited intellectual powers without a sky god giving explicit instructions. So is it so hard to assume that it could not have happened again?

If you think that some little creature does or does not have sex for some moralistic reason, you better prove it!

As opposed to your assumptions?
Like this famous split, for example?

It is not an assumption. It is a deduction based on all evidences man has, as well as the word from God. If anyone has a better idea, that is fine by me. I haven't seen one yet, that leaves the bible as actually true, and that accepts real evidences.

I'd rather we didn't need to threaten anyone with total destruction, I'm suprised you don't agree with this.

I do not agree that wicked man should have any WOMD, in any country. Those that do, and threaten others don't do it speaking for me.

Condom use would still be useful, but I actually referred to Africa and the Pope's line of condoms = hell.

The pope said those that use rubbers will go to hell?? Support that.

And he Jews could have done that, could they?

No idea which Jews you mean there, when, or how it makes any sense.

 

[dad]

I ask, then, why every component of our intelligence is physical.

How would you know? Is inspiration real? Does it sometimes affect thoughts? Do people who were dead, and come back to tell about it, need the physical brain they leave behind to think?

All we can see is physical, so the PO minded man assumes that is all that is involved. That is not supportable.

There is nothing otherworldly or spiritual needed to run our bodies. Like I said before: God is not needed for this world to begin, run, and end. He is unneeded.

That is absurd. You have no clue what you are talking about. How would you know how much the spiritual was involved, beyond the sight of man? How would you know but that it was created, that means by a spirit, because God is a spirit. You simply are not qualified to talk about it intelligently, or from any position of knowledge.

This point is further proven by the fact that when the brain, a physical thing, experiences physical harm and damage, we can sometimes lose almost all brain activity. Everything we do, think, say, uses the brain. None of it relies on a spiritual side. If it did, then physical damage should not impair such abilities.

Brains are tools of the spirit within us. If the physical housing is damaged, the brain ceases to function as the primary messenger between physical reality, and the spirit. It is like a broken hammer.

And you don't think animals have free will?

No, I don't. Do you? Not in the way we do, and the angels do.

I'm pretty sure they do. An animal can do whatever it chooses to. They are not run by instinct alone. At least, not all of them.

Anything it choses? Again, you can't speak from a standpoint of knowledge.

This is a disagreement in beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven, so it is pointless.

No more than the belief that evolution alone spawned all life on earth from nothing. So called science is pointless.

Maybe because animals just might be below angels in status?

Right, they are. And, the bible says we are right there a little lower than the angels. We named the animals, we were not made animals.

Sure I can. As easily as you are fighting the same universe creation.

That is not very easy then, as science cannot address either. God, however can, and does, and so man can address it with His cheat sheet. Not by our own devices.

Tell me this, Dad. Why must we offer evidence, but you don't have to? Sounds like a big double standard to me.

Science must. If you want to claim science, you must. I realize science cannot help, cannot go there to the tell us the state of the universe at the time. So, I do not say science knows, if you make the claims about the past as a science claim, you need to back up the same state universe it is based on.
I don't. I can take God's word for it, and laugh at the so called science that huffs and struts around, all puffed up, and haughty, that really knows squat about it.

Cannot prove the Bible = no credibility.

He that cometh to God will know whether the things Jesus said are true or not. We have the record, and we know. Those without do not, and cannot know, till they come to Him. So I don't need to give the bible credibility, it has that. Nothing you could ever ever do about that.
If people are satisfied with not knowing by science, with being unable to come to a knowledge of the truth, fine. The issue is not the bible, or any other belief we might look to. The issue is that we were lied to for too long, that science somehow had something on creation, that the bible was not true, and etc. We can see here now, by things like your own admission, that the mother of all assumptions all that rot is based on is utterly not supportable.

Once again, he would rather me not believe in him at all, than me not really being sure? How does that make any sense at all?

I didn't say that. I said He would rather we were hot or cold.
1Ki 18:21 -And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.
The setting there was people that were torn between the religion of the state (like evolution today!), and the true God.

" Verse 21. How long halt ye between two opinions?
Literally, "How long hop ye about upon two boughs?" This is a metaphor taken from birds hopping about from bough to bough, not knowing on which to settle. Perhaps the idea of limping through lameness should not be overlooked. They were halt, they could not walk uprightly; they dreaded Jehovah, and therefore could not totally abandon him; they feared the king and queen, and therefore thought they must embrace the religion of the state. Their conscience forbade them to do the former; their fear of man persuaded them to do the latter, but in neither were they heartily engaged; and at this juncture their minds seemed in equipoise, and they were waiting for a favourable opportunity to make their decision. Such an opportunity now, through the mercy of God, presented itself."
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1ki&chapter=18&verse=21#1Ki18_21

Too bad that's impossible. God cannot be proven.

He doesn't want to be shown openly to all at the moment. We must chose to come to Him, then we can know.
Joh 7:17 -If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.Joh 6:29 -Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

 

[dad]

A much more logical explaination is that it is only a story, one of a local but immense flood and the survivors though the whole world was flooded. Add a few generations, and a bit of creativity and you have an exagerated myth ground into folklore.

Nothing makes that logical. Are you suggesting that so many cultures have some sort of flood legends because everyone jet setted around the globe, and chewed the fat?

Or, if it did happen, then the trees survived and were covered by the flood one week, then as the waters receded they became visable again. No need to break the laws of physics on this one.

No, but you may as well say a giant Q tip came down, and dried the waters as well. And you go directly against the bible, because it clearly says that the flood killed all animals and men on earth, save those on the ark. It also says they were in there over a year. Why make stuff up??

Denial desn't change facts I'm afraid.
Trace the path of your cranial nerve - it tells its own evolutionary story; criss-crossing around and looking all badly created.......

Well, the cranial nerve seems connected to the rest alright to me. Don't see any loose wires, or nerves hanging out the ears, or sticking through the knee. No reason to get down and salaam to evolution at all.

you mean you never looked, or just think that God moves in mysterious ways.
Who said anything about an accident?
My line of evidence centred on the structures inside the human body.

Random mutations, from a randomly appearing little freak side show lifeform, are responsible for this???

She just looks like a beautiful ape to me.

I see. Let me compare the two, ans see if you have anything there.

Can't really say I agree with your assessment.

Then explain why experiments on a bacterium can provide insights into human genetic illnesses which are not caused by said bacterium.
When you can do this, the point is mute. until then....

Maybe because they find the patterns of things from the present abilities to adapt, of that little part of creation?

I'd rather you explain why evolutionary theory works and benefits our lives.

Long as it bases itself on the created trait of evolution, why wouldn't it???

Can you explain why 3% of our DNA is reserved for olifactory genes, when (compared to other mammals) our sense of smell is so poor?

Maybe. What about that do you think needs explaining?

If I hinted that we evolved tri-colour vision as apes and this directed us more towards being visual creatures, would it become more apparant?

That you are hung up on apes something fierce? I think that couldn't be more apparent. That apes have some similarity in the eyes really doesn't matter. The best you could hope for is some wicked pre flood men connection genetically. But that wouldn't take us to the pond, now would it?

I wonder if he thinks that the jury is still out on WMD, or should he just ask God where they are.

I wonder as well, since I have no idea who you mean, or what you are talking about.

We are apes, and as they are just animals, then so are we.

Boy, you got it bad. They just don't seem to turn me on.

What is unbased is your idea that a virus has ever been anything else or has acted in a different manner.

No more than assuming that the converse is true. It wasn't my idea anyhow. I hear people talk. One example is here
"Several genes coding for key proteins involved in viral replication and morphogenesis as well as the major capsid protein of icosahedral virions are shared by many groups of RNA and DNA viruses but are missing in cellular life forms. On the basis of this key observation and the data on extensive genetic exchange between diverse viruses, we propose the concept of the ancient virus world. The virus world is construed as a distinct contingent of viral genes that continuously retained its identity throughout the entire history of life. Under this concept, the principal lineages of viruses and related selfish agents emerged from the primordial pool of primitive genetic elements, the ancestors of both cellular and viral genes."
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/29
While not sharing their opinion on the nature of the beginnings, I note that science seems to consider the possibility.

Specifically, you need to demonstrate how humans and chimps have been infected IN THE SAME GENETIC LOCATION by the same virus, leaving only the same genetic signiture - 200,000 times.

What was the location?

No, evidence based reasoning and deduction.
Maybe they should teach that at school, then we'd all be atheists in a few years.

They should teach pagan deduction? Do they teach anything else?

But your specific point was that sin is a major contributer to genetic abnormalities.
i asked for evidence, but I know I'll never get any.

Is HIV genetic? I already linked the site that outlines homosexual "sex" as the main cause in one continent. What more could anyone ask for!!??

So consider this: if you're right, then the countries that sin the most shoul dhave the highest proportion of genetic abnormalities.

Depends on the kind of sin. I already proved that some sin is a major cause. Done deal.

Since worshipping other gods is a sin, then China, Japan, Iran etc should be littered with them (compared to a Chrsitian nation)
If I look really hard, do you think I will find any such patterns?

No, I think you will find your country worshiping as many other gods.

Oh dear. Seige menality.
So where does theistic evolution stand on this?

They stand either with God, or against Him. He was not at the pond.

Actually, Darwin's work does not discount the possibility of theistic creation - but modern evidence suggests it would have to be unicellular and have taken place around 3.5 billion years ago.

Theistic evolution, if not based on creation itself, as the bible tells it, is mere unbelief.

Whilst his work shook his own faith quite considerably, i would have thought that his schooling in the church would have gnawed away at his faith even more.

I see you are worried about peoples faith. If Darwin had so little faith, that he imagined that evolution negated creation, rather than supplemented it, it needed a shaking up.

Then you have no idea what you have missed.
Plenty is available on youtube, maybe you should skip a quote-mine session and watch a little bit. The argument sketch is particularly apt.

I find that the life of Brian was more than enough to expose them as punks. Not something that I find worthwhile.

OK, why do we find fish in devonian rocks with a shoulder, a humerous, a radius & ulna, and wrist bones with digits?
Did god want fish to do press ups 375 million years ago?

All fish? Or a few that maybe needed to get around twixt land and water areas?

And the reason was?
On a par with being killed for laughing at a bald man.

Well, the suggestion seems to be something to do with them and Noah's nakedness.

Thanks. Maybe you should take a look at yourown wiring sometime, I imagine you have the same problem.

Well, no, I still see the pretty girl as very different from the ape.

No, it is just where the evidence has led so far.
It may be wrong, but only future scientific discoveries will unlock such a problem.

No, a few fish with humerous digits, don't add up to a pond origin, sorry. They add up to evolution as a mere created trait.

 

[NailsII]

One needs to know what one is looking at. Your myth originated in the minds of foolish men.

I think sir, you are quite mistaken on this point.
And using biblical logic to assert that everything that doesn't agree with you is foolish is the worst kind of circular argument, which required no logic whatseoever.

No. You need to demonstrate you are capable of logic, based on more than pipe dreams.

After you

"Each hair of the lanugo is shed one by one and is then swallowed by the baby. The tiny hairs join mucus, bile, and other products to form a black substance called meconium. Just after birth, this meconium is excreted by the newborn in its first bowel movement."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/07/the_odd_body_nearly_naked_ape/
Sounds like you are talking about a feature of birth that is not monkey like to me. We eat our hair, and poop it out, after all, we don't need it. So?

So if we don't need it, why do we grow it?
Why do we have the genes for it?
And, in case you havn't noticed, even after birth we still have a vestigal layer of sparse fur which increases somewhat in adulthood.
We also have a reflex action which stands the hairs up when we are cold, as in other mammals, to trap in warm air near the skin.
But of course we havn't got enough hair for this feature to be of any use whatsoever, so evolution theory tells us it is a vestigal feature from our not-so-distant past.
Does creationism have an intelligent point as to why this happens?

Don't be silly. The bible was written after the ice age as well. As for what we required, that is another story. Some feel that we were sort of clothed with a spiritual light. They realized they were naked after the fall. Let's see a monkey top that!

At least we agree on something - but you have to agree that the ice age predates the bible because you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
But how did it pre-date creation?
Spritual light? Some may dream all kinds of things, but perhaps some things should stay as dreams.
And monkeys are not naked - lucky for them they don't need 'spiritual light'.

Well, no, not at all. That is your twisted preference on how to look at it. What if, for example, that hair used to work with the spiritual light that formed, some feel, a covering?
Or, what if we found out that the hair that was eaten had some other good purpose?
Or, what if human gestation used to be less time, and now, for some reason, being so long, some hair is involved?
Or,,,,etc? Your wild animalistic ideas are simply not of any particular worth at all.

Keep thinking, when you have something intelligent to add please be sure to let me know.

And evidence to make one fly. The same past is not a theory, it is merely an underlying assumption. Therefore any so called theory depending on that state is not in need of any countering by evidence. Obviously.

Here we go again, you have no answer so you simply asert that science doesn't qualify during bibical times as the world was different somehow.

Well, these embedded stones might go toward that, at least they suggest it.

Only if the flood had direction to move the rocks, but the only one in genesis is down.

Show me a place undisturbed by massive continental sliding, mountain building, the ice age, and etc??

My point exactly - there isn't one.
And as these features require more than biblical time, they leave you a little stuck, don't they.

Well, it shows that the rabid little opinion in some blog is not the only kid on the block.

Sttrange, I don't recall your post from the article pointing out the logical falacy of his ideas, only saying he didn't have enough evidence for his grandiose claims.
A solid criticism is not an invalidation of the data or conclusion, it is a method that science uses to improve and build certainty.
WE don't assert something and pretend it is set in stone, never changing for all time.

Well, that is interesting, in that all that is needed is for the need to arise, in this changing world of yesterday, and the inbuilt genes can tweak on, and perk up into action. In heaven, the snakes will not be poison. So they will simply evolve to tweak off the stuff. So??

Once again, on what do you base this opinion that animals can get to heaven?
They are unable to comply with the central works of christianity, which is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.

Ah, a tacit admission that it fits the evidence. (except for the silly myth based dating that goes on)

If you can show evidence for humans 50 million years ago, then maybe. Until then.....

Well, it would seem from the evidences, that the adapting went a certain way. That is as predicted by a created kind start model!!! The evidence mounts!

Er, no. If creation is true, the starting point was a unicellular organism that took nearly three billion years to evolve into a multicellular organism.

It says a lot of things, I must have missed that one. If a man accepts God's spirit inside, they are not going to be doing much killing. Strawman.

Cut to the chase - can i live the life of an evil, wicked person and repent on my death bed and still enter heaven - yes or no.

Says you, who know next to nothing about it.

But what I know is gathered by open eyes.

If you think that some little creature does or does not have sex for some moralistic reason, you better prove it!

I have no intention of providing proof, it is just a little snippet which shows we don't need the bible or deity to have morals

It is not an assumption. It is a deduction based on all evidences man has, as well as the word from God. If anyone has a better idea, that is fine by me. I haven't seen one yet, that leaves the bible as actually true, and that accepts real evidences.

But one major sticking point - you don't know it is the word of god. And even if it was, which god would it be?

The pope said those that use rubbers will go to hell?? Support that.

Then despite all your intelligence, you are an ignorant man deep down inside.

No idea which Jews you mean there, when, or how it makes any sense.

The Jews that lived under Roman occupation.

 

[FishFace]

Thank you. Then why offer something that cannot reach up into the heavens, and deal with what is being discussed??

It's an example.

But how much they vary is the issue, as to whether we can apply fishbowl functions.

Uh, no. If you have a function of some variables, then it doesn't matter how much the variables change.

Really now?

Yes, really. Your ignorance of basic maths is noted.

But the *v in the triangle of lines used to claim a distance is all assumed to be the same.

That doesn't mean anything. The *v is assumed to be the same... as what? You need to learn english as well as maths.

It is clear that you want to apply the PO light speed for the crucial line.

Well, that's the only sensible thing to do, but even if you want to be stupid about it, it doesn't matter, you just put whatever speed you want in there.

I think it was you that claimed that we know that the core lights up first. If it was a haze for years, how would we know that??

What? We know exactly when the supernova appeared to occur, since that is when the light reached earth. We also know exactly when the rings appeared to brighten - a few months later. If you look on the wikipedia article you can even see an animated GIF of the process.
Doesn't matter whether it was hazy or not.

Ah, there you go again. Support that.

I'm sorry? What do you suppose we actually observed? Go check in the literature, or look at the wikipedia article.

Well, what is the nature of that association, that is the question? Why is it that they claim they were there long before the 'explosion' when nobody ever saw them? Prove it. I don't believe it.

Doesn't matter what the association is. We know they were there before hand because, apparently, they were formed by the stellar wind from the star some 20,000 years before the supernova. In case you didn't realise, circumstellar rings don't just pop into existence - you believe that? Tell you what - you prove it.

Well, our solar system is just not good enough to speak of all the universe. I think we can agree local light travels at a known rate.

Prove it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, dad - this entire thread is about me proving that the speed of light was constant out in the rest of the universe, but apparently you can't even prove it for the solar system? PROVE IT.

You call it a core. In reality, what is it we see? An hourglass thingie in the middle of the rings.

Who cares what we call it (by the way, there's no hourglass in the middle) it's the same thing doing the same stuff. Are you saying it does different stuff in different directions? PROVE IT.

No, I would look at the observations, and realize we know what to expect there.

Wait, you can't even prove that light travels the same speed from all directions from a match?
Woah, you'd better stick with the baby physics before you go off with the big boys of space and supernovae! So, dad, if you want me to prove these things about the supernova, I'll do that right as soon as you prove the same things about matches, and more mundane things.

That's a bit more sensible, don't you think - walk before you run.

 

[dad]

I think sir, you are quite mistaken on this point.
And using biblical logic to assert that everything that doesn't agree with you is foolish is the worst kind of circular argument, which required no logic whatseoever.

You may think that God is mistaken when He calls the wisdom of this world foolishness, but, you do so without rhyme or reason.
Your claims are based on an assumed state, that is not supportable by fact or science. So, I'll take God's word for it, thanks.
Using nothing to back up your foundational assumption is what is what is foolish, and the worst kind of circular argument, which required no logic whatsoever. No proof whatsoever. No science whatsoever. No common sense whatsoever, in stuffing the universe in a spark, and devising foolish fables to explain the beauty, and wonder, that all life is today.

After you

Part of logic is not to make stuff up. Work on that. That is all you have done, and can do regarding the universe of the past, or the future.

So if we don't need it, why do we grow it?
Why do we have the genes for it?

We have the wherewithal to adapt. If we really needed hair, we could grow some. Some people apparently might find that a turn on.

And, in case you havn't noticed, even after birth we still have a vestigal layer of sparse fur which increases somewhat in adulthood.

You can call it fur all you like, that doesn't equate a baby with an animal. That simply demonstrates your outlook, world view, and preferred terms. When you go swimming, I guess you use your flippers to get around.

We also have a reflex action which stands the hairs up when we are cold, as in other mammals, to trap in warm air near the skin.

So, you might prefer that men freeze?? Sounds like we are well built. The evidence mounts.

But of course we havn't got enough hair for this feature to be of any use whatsoever, so evolution theory tells us it is a vestigal feature from our not-so-distant past.
Does creationism have an intelligent point as to why this happens?

Hair and nails contine to grow after we die. Maybe you think that is a vestigial remnant from descending from ghouls, or carcases?
Hair is useful.
" The hair on our heads isn't just there for looks. It keeps us warm by preserving heat. The hair in the nose, ears, and around the eyes protects these sensitive areas from dust and other small particles. Eyebrows and eyelashes protect eyes by decreasing the amount of light and particles that go into them. The fine hair that covers the body provides warmth and protects the skin. Hair also cushions the body against injury."
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/skin_hair_nails.html
In our past, we may have had more hair. There may be other reasons for such a reaction as goose bumps as well. For example, fear can cause them. Fear is a strong emotion. What emotions may have involved our skin area in the garden? Well, we don't really know. If, for example, we did have a spiritual also eternal body, and some sort of light covering, one assumes that we still had sex. Obviously. That involves emotions.
So, it could be some leftover from the reactions we had when the bodies were different.
Being left in a physical only body meant we were 'naked'. I notice God made us a fur coat Personally right about then. That means that that precise time may be the time when the change occurred. Assuming it was just more hair is a physical only flight of fancy.

Amazing. Bet you never heard that before.

At least we agree on something - but you have to agree that the ice age predates the bible because you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Only the hard copy. We had the record somewhere, even if just in heaven. There are records, and 'books' there, you know. BVut, unless evidence leads me elsewhere, I accept for the time being, that the ice age was after the flood. That means it does pre date the hard copy of the bible. No big deal, since we are talking thousands of years.

But how did it pre-date creation?

How did what pre date creation? If you mean the ice age, it didn't, of course.

Spritual light? Some may dream all kinds of things, but perhaps some things should stay as dreams.

I guess as far as your temporal reality, and rotting, dying body and mind can tell, that might have some merit. For those not buried in the bowl totally, we realize there is and will be, and was more at work. The sort of more that present science can only lick it's little PO chops, and dream about.

And monkeys are not naked - lucky for them they don't need 'spiritual light'.

No, they are mere animals, so fur is all they get. You don't seem to mind it.

Keep thinking, when you have something intelligent to add please be sure to let me know.

Done. See above.

Here we go again, you have no answer so you simply asert that science doesn't qualify during bibical times as the world was different somehow.

Here we go again, you have no answer so you simply asert that science does qualify during bibical times as the world was the same somehow.

Only if the flood had direction to move the rocks, but the only one in genesis is down.

This means what?? That when we fill a planet with water, you expect no water movement at all?

My point exactly - there isn't one.
And as these features require more than biblical time, they leave you a little stuck, don't they.

In no way, in fact, they are a forte. Only if the past was in this same present state would that be any problem. If you recall, you have no clue on that! All you have is a preference.

Sttrange, I don't recall your post from the article pointing out the logical falacy of his ideas, only saying he didn't have enough evidence for his grandiose claims.
A solid criticism is not an invalidation of the data or conclusion, it is a method that science uses to improve and build certainty.

Then keep building, you sure haven't got anything solid in that concept yet.

WE don't assert something and pretend it is set in stone, never changing for all time.

Really? So no one claims that this universe state will go on, and the sun and stars fizzle out? You don't pretend that present life processes always were the same, like the rates of evolution?

Once again, on what do you base this opinion that animals can get to heaven?
They are unable to comply with the central works of christianity, which is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.

Animals are not bound to man's laws. They are creatures that He made for us, and Himself. As the world is made new, and the heavens, animals also will be restored to perfection of the original design, apparently.

If you can show evidence for humans 50 million years ago, then maybe. Until then.....

There was no such time on earth. That is why you will not show evidence that there was.

Er, no. If creation is true, the starting point was a unicellular organism that took nearly three billion years to evolve into a multicellular organism.

That is a fable, that cannot stand the light of day.

Cut to the chase - can i live the life of an evil, wicked person and repent on my death bed and still enter heaven - yes or no.

One can repent till the end, look at the thief on the cross. All men are wicked sinners. I could see how God might forgive some rash act of passion, as easily as a deliberate offending of His little one's faith, over time. Or even how some rash mistake might be better than killing millions of babies deliberately, in pre meditated murder. Etc.

It is my opinion that the truly wicked would not dream of truly repenting even near death, if they happened to know when that was.

But what I know is gathered by open eyes.

Open physical eyes that have clear and present limitation, obviously. Eyes that seem so biased, and blinded, I might add, that they look on man as beasts, and can't really see a difference between a pretty woman, and an ape even. Sad.

I have no intention of providing proof, it is just a little snippet which shows we don't need the bible or deity to have morals

Assigning some animal reproductive behavior to 'morals' is a strange tactic. One I doubt even you would honestly believe.

But one major sticking point - you don't know it is the word of god. And even if it was, which god would it be?

Correction. YOU don't know. I do. Millions of us, that have come to Him know, just like the bible says we would. And, we know which God it is. Jesus.

Then despite all your intelligence, you are an ignorant man deep down inside.

I am deeply ignorant because I ask you to support something you allude the pope to have said??? Get a grip.

The Jews that lived under Roman occupation.

No, they never had nukes, if that was what you meant. So??

 

[Danyc]

How would you know? Is inspiration real? Does it sometimes affect thoughts? Do people who were dead, and come back to tell about it, need the physical brain they leave behind to think?

Of course they would need it. Without a brain, we are useless. We can do nothing without it. If the brain dies, we die.

As to 'is inspiration real?', it is simply a mechanism of the brain. Read:
Researchers Map Brain's Inspiration Point
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99544&page=1

All we can see is physical, so the PO minded man assumes that is all that is involved. That is not supportable.

What is not supportable, is that there is anything spiritual going on. If you want to go ahead and assume that there is some mambo-jumbo at work, go ahead; we don't care. Just know that unless you provide evidence that there is something else going on, nobody will listen to you.
We have been given no reason to believe such a thing. The reason will be provided by you, I hope.

That is absurd. You have no clue what you are talking about. How would you know how much the spiritual was involved, beyond the sight of man? How would you know but that it was created, that means by a spirit, because God is a spirit. You simply are not qualified to talk about it intelligently, or from any position of knowledge.

Methinks you did not read what was said.

I did not contest the involvement of the spiritual. I contested the need for a spiritual side. There is NO NEED for anything spiritual to run this world. This world is physical, as is everything in it. Every question you can ask about the mechanisms of this world can be answered through science. Spiritual influence is not needed.

Brains are tools of the spirit within us. If the physical housing is damaged, the brain ceases to function as the primary messenger between physical reality, and the spirit. It is like a broken hammer.

So, what you're saying is what we do with our free will is governed by our spirit, and the brain simply carries it out? Is this correct?

No, I don't. Do you? Not in the way we do, and the angels do.

Why not? Can not a dog choose to come or not to come when I say to it, "Come!" ?

Animals are simply more limited in their forms of expression of their wills, because they are less intelligent; a physical trait.

Anything it choses? Again, you can't speak from a standpoint of knowledge.

Yes, anything it chooses, within the limits of it's physical world. Did you know that, when the reasoning and decision-making center of the brain, or the Pre-Frontal Cortex, becomes too tired, we become like animals? Here is a rundown of the prefrontal cortex:

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is the very front of the brain, located right beneath the forehead. It is in the anterior (front) region of the frontal lobes. Besides being the front of the brain physically, it is responsible for the executive functions, which include mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong or good and bad, predicting future events, and governing social control -- such as suppressing emotional or sexual urges. The prefrontal cortex is the brain center most strongly implicated in qualities like sentience, human general intelligence, and personality.

-http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-prefrontal-cortex.htm

We show our true animal selves; our evolved reasoning center shuts down and we run on instinct.

If we have evolved such a system, one that regulates our morality and our personality, does it not make sense that other animals may have as well? Apes have the same areas of the brain, albeit less developed than ours.

Apes have free will.

No more than the belief that evolution alone spawned all life on earth from nothing. So called science is pointless.

You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, a common mistake.

Evolutionary theory does not state that all life on earth was spawned from nothing. It suggests that it all formed from a single unicellular organism.

Right, they are. And, the bible says we are right there a little lower than the angels. We named the animals, we were not made animals.

We simply gave them names, because we were more intelligent. Not that I believe that really happened (the whole naming thing), but I'll play along.

We also gave ourselves names: humans. We named the animals. We are animals. Only animals, albeit a little smarter.

That is not very easy then, as science cannot address either. God, however can, and does, and so man can address it with His cheat sheet. Not by our own devices.

Cannot prove God = no credibility in debate.

Science must. If you want to claim science, you must. I realize science cannot help, cannot go there to the tell us the state of the universe at the time. So, I do not say science knows, if you make the claims about the past as a science claim, you need to back up the same state universe it is based on.
I don't. I can take God's word for it, and laugh at the so called science that huffs and struts around, all puffed up, and haughty, that really knows squat about it.

Oh, you mean the science that knows just as much as you do?

Dad, why don't you just go ahead and give us the reason we should NOT assume a same past state? You obviously have a good reason, or you wouldn't be arguing with us here.

And DON'T say God, he is not a good reason. Cannot prove god = no credence in debate.

He that cometh to God will know whether the things Jesus said are true or not. We have the record, and we know. Those without do not, and cannot know, till they come to Him. So I don't need to give the bible credibility, it has that. Nothing you could ever ever do about that.
If people are satisfied with not knowing by science, with being unable to come to a knowledge of the truth, fine. The issue is not the bible, or any other belief we might look to. The issue is that we were lied to for too long, that science somehow had something on creation, that the bible was not true, and etc.

We can see here now, by things like your own admission, that the mother of all assumptions all that rot is based on is utterly not supportable.

Does it matter that it is not supportable? We have been given nothing else that we should believe.

That's just it, Dad. You see, we are going to go right on along and continue to assume a same state past. Nothing you can do about that, unless you tell us why we shouldn't continue to assume such a thing. Simply telling us it is an assumption is stupid; so is yours an assumption. They're ALL assumptions.

But, we feel like believing this one, as it makes the most logical sense, is supported by observation, and evidence points to it. There is no proof, of course, but there is more evidence for it than a split state (still have no idea where in the Bible this is shown to have happened).

So, are you going to tell us why it is the wrong assumption, or are you just going to continue to to shout at us that it is an assumption? Because if it's the latter, don't waste your breath: We don't care.

I didn't say that. I said He would rather we were hot or cold.

Oh, ok, then I'll be cold. I love the cold.

He doesn't want to be shown openly to all at the moment. We must chose to come to Him, then we can know.

That's convenient.

Wait, to all? You mean, he shows himself only to some? Why does he not show himself to us? Why are they so privileged?

Come on, no fair.

 

[dad]

It's an example.

Examples need to apply to what they are meant to address.

Uh, no. If you have a function of some variables, then it doesn't matter how much the variables change.

It does if we use it to measure distance!

That doesn't mean anything. The *v is assumed to be the same... as what? You need to learn english as well as maths.

Well, assume what you like. I am more concerned with what we know.

Well, that's the only sensible thing to do, but even if you want to be stupid about it, it doesn't matter, you just put whatever speed you want in there.

In where? In line D? How about we put in a different speed there, than for the lines that go to earth from the area? How do you compute distance to earth then??

What? We know exactly when the supernova appeared to occur, since that is when the light reached earth. We also know exactly when the rings appeared to brighten - a few months later. If you look on the wikipedia article you can even see an animated GIF of the process.

"Hubble wasn't even around when astronomers first spotted the supernova in 1987. When Hubble was launched three years later, astronomers didn't waste any time in using the telescope to study the stellar blast. Its first peek was in 1990, the year the observatory launched."
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/10/full/
"But for our purposes we are interested only in the inner ring, which is now 1.37 light years in diameter. This ring was first observed about nine months after the discovery of SN 1987 A."
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

Now, are you sure you want to stick with the few months thing?? By the way, the animated gif is based on hubble pictures.

"The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring."
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

Doesn't matter whether it was hazy or not.

Maybe you better ask Chalnoth, or someone to help you out here, apparently, it is out of your range.

I'm sorry? What do you suppose we actually observed? Go check in the literature, or look at the wikipedia article.

Well, we did not observe the rings, that were, after the fact. claimed to have been there for many ten thousands of years, now did we??!

Doesn't matter what the association is. We know they were there before hand because, apparently, they were formed by the stellar wind from the star some 20,000 years before the supernova. In case you didn't realise, circumstellar rings don't just pop into existence - you believe that? Tell you what - you prove it.

Since there was no universe then, I would take that with a grain of salt! The claims of what are SN remnants are not perfectly strung pearls of wisdom, as much as a patchwork grasping at PO explanations for things way too high for puny present science.
This remnant somehow does not seem all that similar to 1987a

Prove it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, dad - this entire thread is about me proving that the speed of light was constant out in the rest of the universe, but apparently you can't even prove it for the solar system? PROVE IT.

"
From his observations, Römer concluded that light took about twenty-two minutes to cross the earth's orbit. This was something of an overestimate, and a few years later Newton wrote in the Principia (Book I, section XIV): "For it is now certain from the phenomena of Jupiter's satellites, confirmed by the observations of different astronomers, that light is propagated in succession (NOTE: I think this means at finite speed) and requires about seven or eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth." This is essentially the correct value.
Of course, to find the speed of light it was also necessary to know the distance from the earth to the sun"
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html

Done! Now, find someone to help you with this far universe stuff, or stick to the fishbowl stuff you are somewhat familiar with.

 

[Danyc]

"
From his observations, Römer concluded that light took about twenty-two minutes to cross the earth's orbit. This was something of an overestimate, and a few years later Newton wrote in the Principia (Book I, section XIV): "For it is now certain from the phenomena of Jupiter's satellites, confirmed by the observations of different astronomers, that light is propagated in succession (NOTE: I think this means at finite speed) and requires about seven or eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth." This is essentially the correct value.
Of course, to find the speed of light it was also necessary to know the distance from the earth to the sun"
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html

Done! Now, find someone to help you with this far universe stuff, or stick to the fishbowl stuff you are somewhat familiar with.

No, that is incorrect. In reality the speed of light from the sun to Pluto is different than the speed of light from the sun to the Earth.

Prove me wrong.

 

[sinan90]

Hair and nails contine to grow after we die. Maybe you think that is a vestigial remnant from descending from ghouls, or carcases?
Hair is useful.

Hair and nails don't actually grow after you've died, it's just the fact that the body dries out and the skin retracts make it appear as if the hair and nails grow after death

See: http://www.snopes.com/science/nailgrow.asp

 

[FishFace]

Examples need to apply to what they are meant to address.

No, the example in this case was used to shed light on a particular subject in mathematics. For you to learn from.

Well, assume what you like. I am more concerned with what we know.

We know that the line D is some number (which we can calculate) multiplied by the speed at which light traveled across the gap.

Now, are you sure you want to stick with the few months thing??

Sorry, that should have read:
We know exactly when the supernova appeared to brighten, since that is when the light reached earth. We also know exactly when the rings appeared to brighten - a few months later.

This is still true, whether or not we started looking with hubble when the supernova went off or some time afterwards.

Maybe you better ask Chalnoth, or someone to help you out here, apparently, it is out of your range.

Your range, epistemologically speaking, is the inside of your own skull - you are a solipsist. Now go on and prove those things I asked.

Since there was no universe then, I would take that with a grain of salt!

Prove it.

The claims of what are SN remnants are not perfectly strung pearls of wisdom, as much as a patchwork grasping at PO explanations for things way too high for puny present science.
This remnant somehow does not seem all that similar to 1987a

Well no wonder - 1987a isn't a remnant - yet. The ring system was in place before the supernova occurred. We are beginning to observe a remnant form.

"
From his observations, Römer concluded that light took about twenty-two minutes to cross the earth's orbit. This was something of an overestimate, and a few years later Newton wrote in the Principia (Book I, section XIV): "For it is now certain from the phenomena of Jupiter's satellites, confirmed by the observations of different astronomers, that light is propagated in succession (NOTE: I think this means at finite speed) and requires about seven or eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth." This is essentially the correct value.
Of course, to find the speed of light it was also necessary to know the distance from the earth to the sun"
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html

Done! Now, find someone to help you with this far universe stuff, or stick to the fishbowl stuff you are somewhat familiar with.

Sorry, but all you've proven is that, at the time these guys measured things, if their measurements were correct, the particular speed of the light coming from the sun was what we think of today.
Good grief, dad, you need to do better than that. What if the speed of light from mars to earth - which they used to measure the distance from the sun to the earth - was different?

How would you measure it all then?

 

[dad]

Hair and nails don't actually grow after you've died, it's just the fact that the body dries out and the skin retracts make it appear as if the hair and nails grow after death

See: http://www.snopes.com/science/nailgrow.asp

Well, thanks for the attempt at trying to correct me. I will, however, correct you.

"up to certain limit where the growth post mortum stop
The only part of hair that's still alive is the follicle, which has its own blood supply. Once that supply is gone, there can be no growth. Fingernails are the same way.

the other element after a while after death when all the water it out the body we have the impression that the hair and nail still growing but in fact it the dehydration effect."
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Pathology-1640/hair-nail-growth-death.htm
So, though not foe long, apparently they do continue to grow.

 

[dad]

Hair and nails don't actually grow after you've died, it's just the fact that the body dries out and the skin retracts make it appear as if the hair and nails grow after death

See: http://www.snopes.com/science/nailgrow.asp

Well, thanks for the attempt at trying to correct me. I will, however, correct you.

"up to certain limit where the growth post mortum stop
The only part of hair that's still alive is the follicle, which has its own blood supply. Once that supply is gone, there can be no growth. Fingernails are the same way.

the other element after a while after death when all the water it out the body we have the impression that the hair and nail still growing but in fact it the dehydration effect."
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Pathology-1640/hair-nail-growth-death.htm
So, though not for long, apparently they do continue to grow.

 

[dad]

No, that is incorrect. In reality the speed of light from the sun to Pluto is different than the speed of light from the sun to the Earth.
.

Thanks for the unusual claim. You can show us what that is based on.

 

[dad]

No, the example in this case was used to shed light on a particular subject in mathematics. For you to learn from.

An example that had a ball fall down. Wow, that really relates to the universe of the far past. Maybe you could add some math for how blocks are stacked??

We know that the line D is some number (which we can calculate) multiplied by the speed at which light traveled across the gap.

If you don't know the speed of the light in D, or even have any clear observations of core to light action for literally years, how is it you calculate squat, precisely?

Sorry, that should have read:
We know exactly when the supernova appeared to brighten, since that is when the light reached earth. We also know exactly when the rings appeared to brighten - a few months later.

Well, the outer rings were not even known,and the inner ones only seen with clarity years later. You better focus here, pronto.

This is still true, whether or not we started looking with hubble when the supernova went off or some time afterwards.

"[FONT=arial, helvetica] Ground-based images of SN1987A were only able to show a tiny unresolved blob of gas, so it was with anticipation that astronomers awaited the results from the Hubble Space Telescope, launched in April 1990."
http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0301.shtml
[/FONT]

Well no wonder - 1987a isn't a remnant - yet. The ring system was in place before the supernova occurred. We are beginning to observe a remnant form.

That is a story. What, we need to wait a million years to see your tale was a joke? The ring system is a mystery, your theories, know it or not, as wildly, and franticly ad hock , and after the fact, as they are still cannot explain the three rings in any clear, supported way. You better realize you are coming from a position of weakness here.

Sorry, but all you've proven is that, at the time these guys measured things, if their measurements were correct, the particular speed of the light coming from the sun was what we think of today.

And I have no reason to question them, do you??

Good grief, dad, you need to do better than that. What if the speed of light from mars to earth - which they used to measure the distance from the sun to the earth - was different?

We have sent space craft there, and landed them. Do you really think the light from there to here is some mystery? Get a grip, man. This is the sort of nonsense you represent??? Pathetic.

How would you measure it all then?

I would use what real tools we have, and not make stuff up. Give some credit where credit is due. We do have a limited actual knowledge, some science is actually bona fide! Is that so hard to accept for you??