Science? Never. I have something better. It's called Revelsplition!!! It's the truth because IT IS!!!!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If all you have is science you know squat about spacetime out of the box. Deal with it. I am not saying it is a bad thing. Just the reality demonstrated by you and others here.
I understand that you need it to be physical only. But that is only a part of reality.Reality is solid state..
Well, you need a little more than that.Science? Never. I have something better. It's called Revelsplition!!! It's the truth because IT IS!!!!
Could you answer this, dad?What is your explanation for the ring of the supernova brightening and dimming 8 months after the supernova's center brightens and dims every single time, dad?
I don't know.Could you answer this, dad?
i'm not saying that it's an exception, i'm saying it doesn't matter!Of course it does, or why would I mention it? If the universe was interactive with us, how would light in a SN be expected to be an exception?
i can quote talkorigins at you if you likeNot really. You have none.
come again?In the created state, we likely could see stars in real time. Like a live radio show. What we see now is a snapshot of the past.
you're saying that light had many speeds before the split? that one photon of light could travel at one speed and another photon could move at another? if that's true, my argument is ruined!When it flashed light was not a constant speed, is the idea here. So, how long the rings take to light up doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, what does?i'm not saying that it's an exception, i'm saying it doesn't matter!
If that is the best way you know how to speak for yourself, fine. What do they have to say about it??i can quote talkorigins at you if you like
OK, I better slow this down to PO light speed for you, this is the second time you claim to not get it.come again?
Light may have been more than photons, it is not our light, remember. It may share some similarities with it, such as a photon, but not the limits of our state universe. I see no reason why all light would need to have some rigid fixed speed in the forever state.you're saying that light had many speeds before the split? that one photon of light could travel at one speed and another photon could move at another? if that's true, my argument is ruined!
but as usual, there is no evidence that this is the case. if there was, we'd see a lot more galaxies that look like this
The fabric of the universe is the laws that work together in our universe, and forces. For example, the weak nuclear force. The space time continuum, and that sort of thing. This is news??
You missed the point. The constants we know are the change, no change in them is required.Hogwash!
If any of the constants were to change even slightly; then this universe could not exist. So DAD try again!
dunno, but we've already established that the supernova is in your past state, so we don't need to worry about thatIf it doesn't matter, what does?
on second thought, now that we've come full-circle, the last thing i need is more things to argue about. gonna chicken out on this one, if you don't mindIf that is the best way you know how to speak for yourself, fine. What do they have to say about it??
got it. out of curiosity, what's your explanation for why one doesn't witness stars turning on and off?OK, I better slow this down to PO light speed for you, this is the second time you claim to not get it.
In the different universe state, it is possible that stars could come in at something more like real time. In other words, if God turns on or off a star, it either goes on of off that day on this planet. In more or less, real time.
of course notLight may have been more than photons, it is not our light, remember. It may share some similarities with it, such as a photon, but not the limits of our state universe. I see no reason why all light would need to have some rigid fixed speed in the forever state.
you're changing the subject.Most of the universe is dark stuff, they claim, remember? I wonder how we would know if it was really a bunch of stars that were not shining when the split happened? They seem to think something is there, because of things like gravitational effects, etc.
You missed the point. The constants we know are the change, no change in them is required.
Well, I expressed my opinion, that doesn't establish it.dunno, but we've already established that the supernova is in your past state, so we don't need to worry about that
Didn't SN1897a turn on a few decades ago?? Are not a third of the stars due to fall from the sky in the tribulation? But, generally, if we think about it, the stars are millions, and billions of our present light years away. It takes a while to turn them off and on in this state.got it. out of curiosity, what's your explanation for why one doesn't witness stars turning on and off?
Great.of course not
Well, I was explaining stuff more clearly.you're changing the subject.
Well, no. Not if the whole thing was 'frozen' at the split in a snapshot of how it was at the time! All we would expect to see is the lights that were turned on that day.if light could move at any ol' speed it wanted in the past state, there would be evidence of it in the present state.
No, because close or far, the stars could have their light get here fast at the time. No mess involved. The movie froze into a picture, we might say, and no mess is involved.the distant universe would be a jumbled mess. unless God didn't want it to be, of course; makes sense that He might want the universe to be aesthetically pleasing :I
Well, I do feel that a different state universe existed, and will exist in the future again. Not much science can say against it, and it does fit the evidences, and bible.if this is what you believe, then there's not much left to discuss
I see, while there, see if you can pull the old, 'the Chinese have records going back 5000 years' routine.Wrong answer DAD! I am very disappointed in you. Tsk tsk. Anyway don't loose your faith. I shall put in a good word for you the next time I speak with the boss!
I see, while there, see if you can pull the old, 'the Chinese have records going back 5000 years' routine.
http://www.yutopian.com/names/nametree.html
Ah the power of the Lord. No sooner had I requested it and it landed straight from heaven into this post!
Keep the faith bro!
Actually they used the bible as a reference for more accurate dating!Well, I looked at your link for the reliable records. It seems that the first folks on the list were these guys
"The common ancestors of the Chinese race are often regarded as Fu Xi and Nu Huo. According to the legend, they were brother and sister (children of God), but also husband and wife. It puzzled historians why Fu Xi and Nu Huo were often depicted as having human upper body, but with the lower body of a serpent."
How were the years determined, by counting layers of skin shed??
So, let's get this straight. You claim records exist to say that the Chinese have actual records that go back 5000 years. You are shown to be unable to support that, and now claim that we are to use the bible records, because they are more accurate. OK.Actually they used the bible as a reference for more accurate dating!
So, let's get this straight. You claim records exist to say that the Chinese have actual records that go back 5000 years. You are shown to be unable to support that, and now claim that we are to use the bible records, because they are more accurate. OK.
I have been doing that all along, but I see no Chinese in there in the first 1000 years of mankind. Can you show us where they are??
i had a feeling you'd say that. fineDidn't SN1897a turn on a few decades ago??
anytime now!Are not a third of the stars due to fall from the sky in the tribulation?
i don't think i'll enquire further on this oneBut, generally, if we think about it, the stars are millions, and billions of our present light years away. It takes a while to turn them off and on in this state.
so the night sky is partially a moving frozen picture with blinking lights that appears to be going backwards in time. got it.Well, no. Not if the whole thing was 'frozen' at the split in a snapshot of how it was at the time! All we would expect to see is the lights that were turned on that day.
No, because close or far, the stars could have their light get here fast at the time. No mess involved. The movie froze into a picture, we might say, and no mess is involved.
if anyone else said this i'd object, but this is almost logical compared to your other ideasIf there were a bunch that were not shining, all we would see is dark stuff. What do we see? The evidence mounts.
Depends on what the box is. If it is used, as I use the word, to denote a limited area, as related to PO science, then the limits are clear. Science admits it only covers the natural, the physical.
Those are the limits of your fishbowl, those are the limits of your box. Clear and defined, and present, and incontestable by science.
Depends what you call good. I think that the bible is a good book.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?