The Laws of the Universe

[dad]

Sure. If you have evidence that would falsify this idea, that would be very interesting.

The concept of being able to prove things wrong requires something to be known to be right. No? The present as the key to the past is only assumed.

 

[Davian]

Sure. If you have evidence that would falsify this idea, that would be very interesting.

The concept of being able to prove things wrong requires something to be known to be right. No? The present as the key to the past is only assumed.

How far into the past do you want to go? In earth-years?

 

[dad]

How far into the past do you want to go? In earth-years?

5000

 

[Davian]

5000

A blink-of-an-eye. Cool.

The Universe within 5000 Light Years - The Orion Arm

Before we go any further, why not 50,000 years?

Actually, I've got some questions I need to field to some astronomy people, but that has to do with the rotational speed of our galaxy. Seems too slow for me. But that is on the 250 million+ year scale.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Sumer also records long life spans, and Egypt claimed spirits lived among men. The bible of course is the best kept record on earth. So naturally it is the bar to which all things concerning the far past are measured.

Hahaha. One of the best kept records on Earth?

Then why so many versions of it? Why did the Council of Nicea add/take out so much? With each translation it gets less and less like the original document.

It's a storybook, a book of myths believed by a bunch of bronze age barbarians with more plot holes than the entire Back to the Future series - end of.

 

[VehementiDominus]

How far into the past do you want to go? In earth-years?

think he's stuck in the dark ages as it is.

 

[dad]

A blink-of-an-eye. Cool.

The Universe within 5000 Light Years - The Orion Arm

Before we go any further, why not 50,000 years?

Actually, I've got some questions I need to field to some astronomy people, but that has to do with the rotational speed of our galaxy. Seems too slow for me. But that is on the 250 million+ year scale.

Would that be galaxies rotating in the backward direction? 50,000 is fine too. I picked 5000 because the nature change likely happened before that many years ago. But I suspect that once you fail to support that, we can crank it back...back...way back from that.

So you offered light speed as your basis. I see 2 possibilities. One is that the nature changed there at the same time. The other is that it actually is not that far away, because of the way we measure in space and time from the changed earth zone state! Either way, the speed of light would not be a problem.

If we look in the wrong end of a telescope, things look smaller. I think light gets bent a certain way. That doesn't make things far away, of course, only to the observer.

If the space beyond the earth zone acted in a way that affected light, for example (not literally the same way as a telescope, that was for the sake of illustration of principle)--then how we see things is as an observer from here. Therefore parallax distance for example would be no good. So, how would we even know how far the light traveled for starters?!

No need to look at the possibility that the state changed there as well, unless you can get over that hump.

 

[Davian]

A blink-of-an-eye. Cool.

The Universe within 5000 Light Years - The Orion Arm

Before we go any further, why not 50,000 years?

Actually, I've got some questions I need to field to some astronomy people, but that has to do with the rotational speed of our galaxy. Seems too slow for me. But that is on the 250 million+ year scale.

Would that be galaxies rotating in the backward direction?

Galaxies rotate in all directions. Perhaps you are referring to how the spiral pattern of our galaxy rotates in the opposite direction to the orbit of our sun? Can you explain why it appears that way? I'm sure you can look that up.

My question is in regard the rate at with the shape of the resulting galaxy forms from the collision of two.

50,000 is fine too. I picked 5000 because the nature change likely happened before that many years ago. But I suspect that once you fail to support that, we can crank it back...back...way back from that.

How did you establish that 5000 year date? From a bible? I have never read a bible, but I was under the impression that they weren't that precise about such things. Could you detail that here for me?

So you offered light speed as your basis. I see 2 possibilities. One is that the nature changed there at the same time. The other is that it actually is not that far away, because of the way we measure in space and time from the changed earth zone state! Either way, the speed of light would not be a problem.

If we look in the wrong end of a telescope, things look smaller. I think light gets bent a certain way. That doesn't make things far away, of course, only to the observer.

If the space beyond the earth zone acted in a way that affected light, for example (not literally the same way as a telescope, that was for the sake of illustration of principle)--then how we see things is as an observer from here. Therefore parallax distance for example would be no good. So, how would we even know how far the light traveled for starters?!

No need to look at the possibility that the state changed there as well, unless you can get over that hump.

In the vacuum of space, light always travels in a straight line. If the space beyond the "earth zone" were curved in a way that affected light, we would see this affect rippling out, and still be observing it today. But it doesn't appear that way. Perhaps you are proposing that there is some mechanism in place to 'undistort' what we see when we look out past the boundaries of this 'zone' that you have established. Sort of like picking the right fun-house mirror to look at yourself in a different fun-house mirror, the combination resulting in a proper image.

But I think it is far more parsimonious to think that you may just be off on your date calculations. Occam's razor, and all that.

 

[dad]

Galaxies rotate in all directions. Perhaps you are referring to how the spiral pattern of our galaxy rotates in the opposite direction to the orbit of our sun? Can you explain why it appears that way? I'm sure you can look that up.

That wasn't what I was thinking of. But since neither were you, best leave it.

My question is in regard the rate at with the shape of the resulting galaxy forms from the collision of two.

So which galaxy, and how long has science observed this 'collision'?

How did you establish that 5000 year date? From a bible? I have never read a bible, but I was under the impression that they weren't that precise about such things. Could you detail that here for me?

Creation was just over 6000 years ago. The flood probably something like over 4500 years ago. The nature change as I see it was a bout a little more than a century after that. So 5000 is on the safe side.

In the vacuum of space, light always travels in a straight line.

Ha. Evidence??????

If the space beyond the "earth zone" were curved in a way that affected light, we would see this affect rippling out, and still be observing it today.

I think you mean if the space were also our space. I am not talking about a simple curve in our space, but different space possibly further out. The way we see things in our space or we might call it 'fishbowl' might be distorted. How would you know? If you saw red shift distortion for example, you would assume it was caused by our light in our space with our laws...etc!

The lights in a formation might appear to a fish to be a 'galaxy' of far away stars....yet from outside the bowl, we see the lights in another way.

But it doesn't appear that way. Perhaps you are proposing that there is some mechanism in place to 'undistort' what we see when we look out past the boundaries of this 'zone' that you have established. Sort of like picking the right fun-house mirror to look at yourself in a different fun-house mirror, the combination resulting in a proper image.

If the spiritual and physical together is part of the far away universe, and we see just the physical bits, for example, then how would we know what is actually causing effects like shifted light, or apparent gravitation...etc? If time is not a factor in the spiritual realm, then how would time be involved as we know it in deep space if that were also spiritual?


All of your ideas assume that it is like our space and that our laws must apply there. That isn't known.

The star of Bethlehem for example. It moved, and guided men places. It wasn't seen by nations far away. So I assume it was relatively small, like a ship. (doesn't matter if it was a mile wide, or several hundred feet wide) ..in other words, not sun sized, as science imagines stars to be.

Let's take a similar object, spiritual in nature and maybe also physical. Let's put it, or something similar say 1/2 a ly away. Now let's try to measure the distance by parallax

We see it, and get one line on Dec 22. Months later, on June 22 we again see it and get the line. We assume that time applies where the 'star' is, just like here. But what if this star was not bound in time? In other words, when we see it in June, or Dec, we are not seeing it 6 months later! All that moved in time and (our) space is us. Seems to me that you would in effect not have 2 lines to measure, but one!? That is just for starters..

 

[Jazer]

The concept of being able to prove things wrong requires something to be known to be right. No?

With science they do the best they can. They are always looking for a better explaination or a better procedure. If they can not find anything any better, then they are stuck with what they got. For example they use poison to treat cancer. Is that a good way to treat a disease? Right now that is the best they have and the best they can come up with. They do not have anything more effective with a higher cure rate. Even if it is proven not to be effective, if that is all they got, then that is what they go with.

 

[Jazer]

The only evidence man has of the early times is the scriptures.

We have archeology, but they have to go by the way things age today. Bryan Sykes pulled a publicity stunt once. He had a 10,000 year old tooth, so he decided to check it out to see if anyone currently living was related to this person. He knew full well that it would be very easy to find a living decendant. It just so happened that the nearest university had a professor who was related to the 10,000 year old man. How convenient can that be and how many books will it sell? Still Sykes was the first to discover DNA in the tooth. No one else had found out how well the DNA is preserved inside of the enamal. What do you think would happen if you went to the tomb of one of the people in the Bible. Chances are you would find a lot of people related to them.

 

[Davian]

So which galaxy, and how long has science observed this 'collision'?

Universe Today quotes Galaxy Zoo as putting the number at 3% of the galaxies we can see are in the process of merging. Wow.

Creation was just over 6000 years ago. The flood probably something like over 4500 years ago. The nature change as I see it was a bout a little more than a century after that. So 5000 is on the safe side.

No, I mean details. Does it say the earth orbited the sun this many times...?

Ha. Evidence??????

Gotcha. See what happens when you take things out of context? As I say in the next sentence the curvature of space can affect the direction of light. Tricky concept.

I think you mean if the space were also our space. I am not talking about a simple curve in our space, but different space possibly further out. The way we see things in our space or we might call it 'fishbowl' might be distorted. How would you know?

See, this is where you need to explain to me how this is more parsimonious than your date calculations being off. Is it possible that you have the dates wrong?

From your sig and posting style, you take things on one at a time.

But science is not a game of whack-a-mole. Your hypothesis for this 'fishbowl' idea will need to take into account all of the various fields of science that have a stake in the the earth being billions of years old. You gotta whack them all at once.

How do we account for all of these galaxies in the process of merging? That they were created this way? And the Earth was created to look like it is billions of years old. I'd better stop. AV is coming this way.

 

[dad]

With science they do the best they can.

For this present time, that suffices. The claims that have replaced God as creator are not fine, or supportable.

 

[dad]

We have archeology, but they have to go by the way things age today. Bryan Sykes pulled a publicity stunt once. He had a 10,000 year old tooth, so he decided to check it out to see if anyone currently living was related to this person. He knew full well that it would be very easy to find a living decendant. It just so happened that the nearest university had a professor who was related to the 10,000 year old man. How convenient can that be and how many books will it sell? Still Sykes was the first to discover DNA in the tooth. No one else had found out how well the DNA is preserved inside of the enamal. What do you think would happen if you went to the tomb of one of the people in the Bible. Chances are you would find a lot of people related to them.

Ok....they had kids. Seems reasonable.

 

[Nathan Poe]

For this present time, that suffices. The claims that have replaced God as creator are not fine, or supportable.

But science hasn't replaced God -- all it's replaced is an imperfect interpretation of an imperfect record from imperfect men concerning what God has done.

Granted, the current replacement is also imperfect, but it stands on its own merits without having to invent an entire new state of the universe out of whole cloth, and most people would consider that an improvement.

 

[dad]

Universe Today quotes Galaxy Zoo as putting the number at 3% of the galaxies we can see are in the process of merging. Wow.

Having a galaxy confuence or conference or whatever it may be need to mean what you think. The observations are only decades old in many cases, right? How much 'merging' went on in that time? How much involves imaginary old ages? If wee look at just the fats, I have no doubt that it will not support anything old or same state.

No, I mean details. Does it say the earth orbited the sun this many times...?

You want a bible case for when the days of Peleg were? (when the earth was split or divided). Well, I use Usshers dates more or less. Any question of accuracy is fairly minimal.

Gotcha. See what happens when you take things out of context? As I say in the next sentence the curvature of space can affect the direction of light. Tricky concept.

Well, if our space can bend light, one might ask what different space can do to it!

See, this is where you need to explain to me how this is more parsimonious than your date calculations being off. Is it possible that you have the dates wrong?

Are we back to the bible again? Well, I use the rough figure 4400 years ago for the nature change. The change was not directly mentioned, and most have attributed all the changes to the flood. However, that really doesn't stand up as the explanation, and leaves unacceptable problems with migration and adaptation after the flood time, as well as what had to fit on the boat, when the continents separated, etc etc. Using science evidence as a balance, the nature change after the flood is a better fit.

But science is not a game of whack-a-mole. Your hypothesis for this 'fishbowl' idea will need to take into account all of the various fields of science that have a stake in the the earth being billions of years old. You gotta whack them all at once.

Well, it isn't like they are lions Besides, face it, they really have precious little to go on for deep space! Redshift, and the creation remnant background...whoopee do. Those are easy to deal with.

How do we account for all of these galaxies in the process of merging? That they were created this way?

OK, you asked for it...Let's look at that.

Name one galaxy merging, and let's look at the facts and the basis for the claims.

And the Earth was created to look like it is billions of years old. I'd better stop. AV is coming this way.

No. Nothing looks old unless one looks at it through the eyes of present state past belief. Other than that, it looks just fine.

 

[dad]

But science hasn't replaced God -- all it's replaced is an imperfect interpretation of an imperfect record from imperfect men concerning what God has done.

Granted, the current replacement is also imperfect, but it stands on its own merits without having to invent an entire new state of the universe out of whole cloth, and most people would consider that an improvement.

It has been used to do just that. Creation is now something most people no longer give God credit for. Nothing is imperfect about God's record. Those that swallowed that lard about Him not meaning what He said have no leg to stand on. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


One either believes it or not. One cannot believe some soup speck created the universe, and then billions of years later smash up some imaginary debris that makes the earth...etc. ..and believe God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It has been used to do just that.

Only in your imagination.

Creation is now something most people no longer give God credit for.

Not true at all -- there are plenty of Christians who have re-thought how God did it without denying in the slightest that he did it.

So how has God lost any credit for accomplishing the same thing via different methods than what we previously thought?

Nothing is imperfect about God's record.

Again, only in your imagination.

hose that swallowed that lard about Him not meaning what He said have no leg to stand on. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Kind of makes you wish it was Him who actually said that -- then it really would be what He said.

One either believes it or not. One cannot believe some soup speck created the universe, and then billions of years later smash up some imaginary debris that makes the earth...etc. ..and believe God.

Once more, only in your imagination.

And since there are millions of Christians in the world who are doing exactly what you say cannot be done, your imagination counts for squat.

 

[dad]

Only in your imagination.



Not true at all -- there are plenty of Christians who have re-thought how God did it without denying in the slightest that he did it.

So how has God lost any credit for accomplishing the same thing via different methods than what we previously thought?



Again, only in your imagination.



Kind of makes you wish it was Him who actually said that -- then it really would be what He said.



Once more, only in your imagination.

And since there are millions of Christians in the world who are doing exactly what you say cannot be done, your imagination counts for squat.

All believers accept that God created the earth and heavens. Any believers in Christ and salvation here that do not? Speak up...

Any Christian that thinks that Christ never made all things and without Him was not anything made that was made?!

Speak up.

Creation is so woven into the whole bible, that getting rid of it is a bit like getting rid of a man's brain...what's left just won't be a real man.

 

[Jazer]

Ok....they had kids. Seems reasonable.

Of course the point is that DNA a fairly recent discovery confirms that the geneologys in the Bible are true. Somewhere along the way people lost site of the fact that the Bible is a history of the Hebrew people. Science helps us to get everything back into it's proper perspective.