Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
D

dad

Guest
Redshift, and CMB aside, what else really indicates space actually is expanding? Also, aside from concepts based on these two things, such as time dilation of the supernova luminosity curves, the Tolman surface brightness test, etc.

(I say aside from redshift, and the CMB, because it is my opinion they are remnants of a major change in the universe in the past, rather than the theories generally accepted presently.)

Is space actually even really expanding?
 
dad said:
Redshift, and CMB aside, what else really indicates space actually is expanding? Also, aside from concepts based on these two things, such as time dilation of the supernova luminosity curves, the Tolman surface brightness test, etc.

(I say aside from redshift, and the CMB, because it is my opinion they are remnants of a major change in the universe in the past, rather than the theories generally accepted presently.)

Is space actually even really expanding?

I don't know, was there ever really a split?
 
Slevin said:
I don't know, was there ever really a split?

So you don't know if the claimed universe expansion is wholly based on redshift, and CMB. OK. Funny, scientists claim it is expanding.
 
dad said:
So you don't know if the claimed universe expansion is wholly based on redshift, and CMB. OK. Funny, scientists claim it is expanding.

No, I don't study cosmology. What does that have to do with what certain groups of cosmologists claim?
 
Slevin said:
No, I don't study cosmology. What does that have to do with what certain groups of cosmologists claim?
Certain groups? It is the universal claim, almost that they think it is expanding. Anyhow, you don't know, fine.
 
dad said:
Certain groups? It is the universal claim, almost that they think it is expanding. Anyhow, you don't know, fine.

It's a universal claim by cosmologists, the only people who are qualified to say anything about it, since THEY are the ones doing the research and experiments.

Hence, a certain group.

Essentially, you're asking "apart from the evidence that the universe is expanding, what evidence is there that the universe is expanding?"
 
Slevin said:
It's a universal claim by cosmologists, the only people who are qualified to say anything about it, since THEY are the ones doing the research and experiments.

Hence, a certain group.
But they don't go to the far past or future for that, they simply observe the present. They are not qualified to say the past was only like the present natural. Thats the point.

Essentially, you're asking "apart from the evidence that the universe is expanding, what evidence is there that the universe is expanding?"
No, because redshift is only evidence of that, or the CMB, IF the past state of the universe was the same. It wasn't, as will not be the future. They cannot prove they are, and admit it is only assumed. If the past nature was different, it may well be a result of the change, which also left light different. Redshift, as you know, is an effect in the light spectrum.
 
Slevin said:
Prove it.
You cannot prove it was the same or different, believe whatever you like. If you prefer a past and future that is unbiblical, believe it if you like.
You can't even hardly addresss the topic, as you admit. Hopefully, you have the wherwithal to realize science only deals in the natural, and cannot say that the state of the future or far past is like.
 
dad said:
You cannot prove it was the same or different, believe whatever you like.

Then why are you claiming that it was different with such certainty?

If you prefer a past and future that is unbiblical, believe it if you like.
You can't even hardly addresss the topic, as you admit. Hopefully, you have the wherwithal to realize science only deals in the natural, and cannot say that the state of the future or far past is like.

Yes we can, and you not giving any valid reasoning to think that they WERE different is a big indication.
 
Slevin said:
Then why are you claiming that it was different with such certainty? :-?
Because you cannot prove it one way or another with science. The bible indicates it was quite different.




Yes we can,
Show us, then. If you say science can tell us the state of the future, and the far past, give us the evidence, or stop preaching nonsense. No, you cannot, I assure you.



and you not giving any valid reasoning to think that they WERE different is a big indication.

I don't HAVE to, with natural science. You who claim science tells us it was one way or the other, - DO have to!

Otherwise you have no science claim. My claim is a bible claim, that fits with the scientific evidence we do have, not a natural science claim.
 
dad said:
Because you cannot prove it one way or another with science.

Scientific principles evidence that the past is what we have indirectly observed it to be.

The bible indicates it was quite different.

So?

Show us, then. If you say science can tell us the state of the future, and the far past, give us the evidence, or stop preaching nonsense. No, you cannot, I assure you.

It has already been given to you! The background radiation, astronomical observations of distant stars that show us the past, a constant c, and the study of physics all indicate that no changes in the laws of how things operated were any different than the way they were now.

I don't HAVE to, with natural science. You who claim science tells us it was one way or the other, - DO have to!

It doesn't matter, you claim something, you provide evidence with valid reasoning for it. Your dodging the matter is irrelevant.

Otherwise you have no science claim. My claim is a bible claim, that fits with the scientific evidence we do have, not a natural science claim.

Your claim is an unevidenced claim. It doesn't fit with the evidence we have, nor is it in any way reasonable or valid.
 
Slevin said:
Scientific principles evidence that the past is what we have indirectly observed it to be.

False, because todays laws of the present universe only apply here. You simply assume that they apply in the far past in the universe that was there then. Likewise, you only assume that, when the new heavens come, in the future, today's natural priciples will apply. The observations are in the present, remember.

So, the bible has weight, and what it says is important to many millions. Since you cannot prove thet this natural, and it's science apply in the past, we need something that does tell us what happened.


It has already been given to you! The background radiation, astronomical observations of distant stars that show us the past, a constant c, and the study of physics all indicate that no changes in the laws of how things operated were any different than the way they were now.

The CMB only shows us that there is a slight temperature difference, and such. The far stars only show us that they are far away. You only assume that the present light in the present space, in the present universe state was there. That is impossible to prove, and is pure pure absolute speculation, and assumption. In the different universe, light from gar stars got here real real real rea real fast, not like the tenporary present physical only universe state light can do.


It doesn't matter, you claim something, you provide evidence with valid reasoning for it. Your dodging the matter is irrelevant.


It matters in the extreme! I have a bible claim, science has a science claim. I back mine up with the bible, they must back theirs up with science. Otherwise it is not science. And it is not science in any way, anywhere butt in the several thousand year time bibble, or 'fishbowl' of the present temporary universe.

Your claim is an unevidenced claim. It doesn't fit with the evidence we have, nor is it in any way reasonable or valid.
No more or less unevidenced than your claim, -by evidence, and science. It soes fir the evidence perfectly on every front, and far netter at explaining all things, including the spiritual, which science can't deal with.
 
dad said:
False, because todays laws of the present universe only apply here. You simply assume that they apply in the far past in the universe that was there then. Likewise, you only assume that, when the new heavens come, in the future, today's natural priciples will apply. The observations are in the present, remember.

No, it's not assumption, dad. It's actual observation.

So, the bible has weight, and what it says is important to many millions. Since you cannot prove thet this natural, and it's science apply in the past, we need something that does tell us what happened.

So? Who cares if it's important to millions, that doesn't mean it's true. The rest of your paragraph is completely incoherent.

The CMB only shows us that there is a slight temperature difference, and such. The far stars only show us that they are far away. You only assume that the present light in the present space, in the present universe state was there. That is impossible to prove, and is pure pure absolute speculation, and assumption. In the different universe, light from gar stars got here real real real rea real fast, not like the tenporary present physical only universe state light can do.

Well if you believe that's all they show then you're wrong. If you think that in the different past light was faster then you need to indicate what evidence there is that this is true.

Some scientists have postulated that light was faster and has slowed down, but there's no evidence for it. All indications show that light has travelled at the same velocity.

It matters in the extreme! I have a bible claim, science has a science claim. I back mine up with the bible, they must back theirs up with science. Otherwise it is not science. And it is not science in any way, anywhere butt in the several thousand year time bibble, or 'fishbowl' of the present temporary universe.

You can't back your bible claim up with the bible. That's fallacious reasoning. Scientists back their claims up with evidence, not with science. Science is a method. The rest of your paragraph is compeltely incoherent.

No more or less unevidenced than your claim, -by evidence, and science. It soes fir the evidence perfectly on every front, and far netter at explaining all things, including the spiritual, which science can't deal with.

It is less evidenced than my claim, because it has no evidence. It fits nothing, and makes no sense. Science doesn't deal with the spiritual because it's unfalsifiable. It can deal with it, and it has shown a number of times that spiritual things are in fact not spiritual.
 
Slevin said:
It is less evidenced than my claim, because it has no evidence. It fits nothing, and makes no sense. Science doesn't deal with the spiritual because it's unfalsifiable. It can deal with it, and it has shown a number of times that spiritual things are in fact not spiritual.
What is? Take for example, distant light. That is far away. If we assume a same past, it is long ages away as well. If we assume a different past, it is not long ages away. Nothing differentiates the two, but the assumption. You are wrong.

So? Who cares if it's important to millions, that doesn't mean it's true. The rest of your paragraph is completely incoherent.
The rest of the paragraph means that this present natural is not the past or future natural. The bible is important. Very important. But if all you want is natural man's wisdom, fine. You cannot claim that this natural universe is going to be here in the future. Yoy cannot observe the state of the universe, outside of the present. The stars we observe far away, we observe right now, or in the near past. We never observed them 13 billion years ago. You cannot tell us the state of the universe when they were created. You cannot tell us the state of the universe in the far past, or the future. Not with science. That is a fact. If you disagree, show us here and now how you have a scientific case for the state of the past!!!

Some scientists have postulated that light was faster and has slowed down, but there's no evidence for it. All indications show that light has travelled at the same velocity.
I don't say our light was faster. I say that the universe, space, and light, was not our light! Big difference. Our light stayed more or less the same since the split, probably.

So I don't need to prove it changed, it didn't. You need to prove the universe was the same, and light. Because science CLAIMS that the present IS the key for the past, and the future!!! That must be backed up AS a science claim. It can't be, it is merely an assumption!

My ideas only need biblical support, and they have that in spades.


You can't back your bible claim up with the bible. That's fallacious reasoning. Scientists back their claims up with evidence, not with science. Science is a method. The rest of your paragraph is compeltely incoherent.
Oh yes I can! That is how it works. A spiritual claim requires spiritual proof, such as the spiritual book of God. It does not require physical proof. Science claims REQUIRE that kind of evidence and support, testing, and observation, etc. There are science claims, and there are spiritual claims. Science is not spiritual, and the spiritual is not physical only. That is pretty basic reasoning.

It is less evidenced than my claim, because it has no evidence. It fits nothing, and makes no sense. Science doesn't deal with the spiritual because it's unfalsifiable. It can deal with it, and it has shown a number of times that spiritual things are in fact not spiritual.
False. Your same past and future is NOT evidenced at all. My spiritual claim is evidenced greatly. We know there is a spiritual, most men know that. The bibe supports it. It has support. It fits the natural evidence as well as your claims do, and better!
Science does not deal in spiritual things. They can't go there. What ghosts have they observed?? What biblical life, and inspiration have they detected? Which angels have they interviewed? What are you talking about???!
 
dad said:
What is? Take for example, distant light. That is far away. If we assume a same past, it is long ages away as well. If we assume a different past, it is not long ages away. Nothing differentiates the two, but the assumption. You are wrong.

There is not assumption that the past was same. There's no indication that the past was different, so why even contend that there was? There have been a lot of people who tried to show that the laws of physics changed or weren't constant, or that the speed of light wasn't constant, but their theories have been falsified, my friend.

The bible is important. Very important. But if all you want is natural man's wisdom, fine.

Um, no. Observations of reality indicate that your ideas have no merit. It has nothing to do with "man's wisdom". The bible may be important to you, but that means nothing in regards to reality.

You cannot claim that this natural universe is going to be here in the future.

Why not?

The stars we observe far away, we observe right now, or in the near past. We never observed them 13 billion years ago.

We have observed them in the far past, according to all known laws of physics. Your contentions that there was a different light is unevidenced.

You cannot tell us the state of the universe when they were created. You cannot tell us the state of the universe in the far past, or the future. Not with science. That is a fact. If you disagree, show us here and now how you have a scientific case for the state of the past!!!

I have. All observations in cosmology indicate that the laws of physics have not changed since their conception. Nor have any constants changed since their conception as well.

Your ideas about a different past have no evidence, it is only assumption. The ideas that the laws of physics are constant and that the speed of light is constant is falsifiable, but they haven't been falsified.

So you're wrong.

Because science CLAIMS that the present IS the key for the past, and the future!!!

No, science doesn't.

A spiritual claim requires spiritual proof, such as the spiritual book of God. It does not require physical proof.

You assume that the Bible is a spiritual book, based on your own interpretations of reality, and the interpretations of other people. Nobody supports your ideas, not even people who believe in spirituality.

If you have no physical support, and if you have no spiritual support, then where does that leave your ideas?

False. Your same past and future is NOT evidenced at all. My spiritual claim is evidenced greatly. We know there is a spiritual, most men know that. The bibe supports it. It has support. It fits the natural evidence as well as your claims do, and better!

It is evidenced.

Your spiritual claim is not evidenced at all. Just because you "know" there is a spiritual doesn't mean your argument is correct. Just because the bible supports that there is a spiritual, doesn't mean your argument is correct.

Science does not deal in spiritual things. They can't go there. What ghosts have they observed?? What biblical life, and inspiration have they detected? Which angels have they interviewed? What are you talking about???!

Science does not deal in unfalsifiable ideas, that doesn't mean it can't observe things like claims of ghosts, biblical claims, angels and make conclusions about it based on the evidence.

What angels have YOU interviewed? What are YOU talking about?
 
Hey Dad, Ole Buddy, sad to see you changed u'll Old Pick!

!. All you ever do, is argue not debate!
2. You take issues that cant be proved one way or another, and use it against known scientific principles, without proof.

You admit yourself in this article that "Our light stayed more or less the same since the split, probably." (real firm statement there) So if the light from back then is the same light we see now and observe, what we are seeing is correct! Whats your point! I could debate this further, but I advise everyone to stay away from YOU!

These comments will now be blocked in a text box by Dad in his next post! And used against me as evidence that he's right and I'm stupid! Slevin you got guts and I appreciate you hanging in there against instoopable Odds! More power to ya!

Goodbye and Good Rid'ens!

Hebrews 11:1&3 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.
 
As for "light speed variations". . . . . . .with God, all things are possible. . . . . however, not all things are profitable. It would make absolutely no sense to have light, that has been constant as long as man has been measuring it, change so drastically as to cause confusion in our present time, specifically with those who have tested the "speed of light" as a constant. There must be a reason as to why there are sources of light billions of light years away and NOT be a source of "misinformation" to current scientific reasoning. What that answer is, . . . we may never fully know.
 
Orion said:
As for "light speed variations". . . . . . .with God, all things are possible. . . . . however, not all things are profitable. It would make absolutely no sense to have light, that has been constant as long as man has been measuring it, change so drastically as to cause confusion in our present time, specifically with those who have tested the "speed of light" as a constant. There must be a reason as to why there are sources of light billions of light years away and NOT be a source of "misinformation" to current scientific reasoning. What that answer is, . . . we may never fully know.

If I were in any way a theist I would tend to agree with you on that subject.
 
I'm not sure what you are saying, "if you were a theist". What is your religious belief, if any?

What I was saying in my last post is that, since "the speed of light" is a "near constant", it is safe to conclude that the universe is literally billions of our years old.
 
Back
Top