T
Ted
Guest
- Thread starter
- #201
dad :D
sigh
Shalom
Ted :D
sigh
Shalom
Ted :D
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
T
Ted
Guest
- Thread starter
- #202
dad :D
When it takes books of thousands of pages to make a point and prove it how in heavens name am I supposed to list in a few sentences any point?
Shalom
Ted :D
When it takes books of thousands of pages to make a point and prove it how in heavens name am I supposed to list in a few sentences any point?
Shalom
Ted :D
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #203
From this link.Ted said:
"This puzzle was finally resolved by using Cepheid variables to establish a distance to the objects like the "spiral nebula" in the constellation Andromeda, and to determine the size of our own galaxy. By around 1925, Hubble, Leavitt, Hertsprung, Shapley, and others had established conclusively that objects like the Andromeda "Nebula" were in fact much further away than objects in our own galaxy and thus were themselves galaxies."
Distance is not any problem whatsoever. Your scatter shot, slipshod straw man generality link is not even loosely relevant! I agree things are far away, so...????!!! This brings us round to the concept of some point again. Ignore it at your peril!
from your link
"Although estimated to have begun over five billion years ago, the cause of the acceleration is presently unknown and can only be attributed to an as yet undetected dark energy"
MOST of what they think the universe 'must' be comprised of is UNKNOWN!!!! That is why they call it dark, in cased you never realized that. It is the stuff of dreams, invented to prop up the PO myth state past that never was. The CMB is likely a remnant of the changed universe process. Going from the created eternal state to the temporary present one. The rest, is nothing but an attempt to use your same state past myth as the be all end all way to interpret all things.
"The temperature of the background radiation is virtually the same from all parts of the sky, to an accuracy of better than a few thousandths of a kelvin. This tells us that the Universe was a very smooth and uniform place in the distant past"
http://media.newscientist.com/article/m ... ation.html
There is no reason to assume that the created state universe is not a very smooth and uniform place!
One of your favorite sources I believe.
from that link
"While cosmologists have mastered the trick of determining a galaxy's redshift, and therefore its velocity, determining the distance to far-off objects is quite another matter. We don't have any yardsticks that long."
The red shifting of light likely could result from the universe state change as well. We were left with this present light. There is no need to look only for PO state myth explanations for the redshift. There goes your holy grail.
"By comparing the structure in the universe now, some 15 billion years after the Big Bang, with structure observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which preserved information about what the universe was like when it was only 300,000 years old, the Anglo-Australian team could apply a simple geometrical test to elucidate the composition of the universe."
"An explanation of the dark energy may involve String Theory, extra dimensions or even what happened before the Big Bang. At present nobody knows. The ball is now firmly in the theorists court."
In other words, by their own admission they have no clue!! The comparing of the CMB, to today, and some extrapolated past based on today's rules projected backwards, is a strictly PO imagination exercise.
The research, so called you presented was vague, and absolutely myth based.
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #204
You need to start off by having some point. For example, it might be to say that the future will never see any new heavens. Then you can give your reasons why you think science says this.Ted said:
A
Arj
Guest
- Thread starter
- #205
Well,is it? :D
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #206
Is what? Are we back to the OP now, and you mean is space expanding? Well, I don't know. I see no reason why it would be at the moment. Not like we are populating the far universe so fast, we need more room yet, or something! So far, the evidences of science for expansion are redshift, and the leftover, uneven radiation in the cosmic background, basically, and a few other assumptions. If the red shifting was a result of the universe fabric change 4400 years ago, then all assumptions are wrong. Very wrong. Not even close.Arj said:
If the universe laws and fabric and state were the same, they need to prove it. Otherwise their stories forever remain firmly in the la la land of fables, and myth. If the light that is in them be dark, how great is that darkness!
I say phooey on their godless, Antichrist, anti god, and anti bible, and anti creation myths. The time is over when they can foist them over on me as any sort of science. I have had more than enough of that fraud.
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #207
Where do I begin, oh here:
.
enjoy!
, this is what you wanted to say all along, but you went through your cycles of "explanations" as to why the universe is not expanding, trying to prove the already confirmed expansion wrong... just silly!
I spent an entire 15 minutes of my life reading your comments, replying and etc., I think you have succeeded in wasting people's time, but you will have a hard time proving that the Universe is NOT expanding. If you really have proof that the Universe is not expanding please present it to the scientific community and see what happens, oh and let us know what you're showing so we can laugh at it too !
The universe does not expand (or not expand, as you seem to claim) because you see no reason for it to do so... I don't see a reason why we need to have other stars around us, but we dodad said:
.Again, the Universe does not expand (or not expand, as you seem to claim) in order to suit our needs, it's completely independent of our need to expand living onto another planet... you and I are just passengers tagging along for the ride going wherever our galaxy is taking us
enjoy!Dismissed... the evidence for expansion actually comes from several sources: Einstein's theory of relativity and Hubble's research, both of which unequivocally showing that the Universe is expanding. Redshift is a valid way to prove the expansion because it is a physical law, saying that redshift is does not exist is like saying gravity doesn't exist.
aaaaaah... silly you!
And finally you get to the point
, this is what you wanted to say all along, but you went through your cycles of "explanations" as to why the universe is not expanding, trying to prove the already confirmed expansion wrong... just silly!I spent an entire 15 minutes of my life reading your comments, replying and etc., I think you have succeeded in wasting people's time, but you will have a hard time proving that the Universe is NOT expanding. If you really have proof that the Universe is not expanding please present it to the scientific community and see what happens
, oh and let us know what you're showing so we can laugh at it too !
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #208
I think many here are aware of the redshift and other reasons for the claim. You should also be aware that neither you nor I decree the state of the universe. Hopefully, also that science can't say, no matter who decrees what.doGoN said:Where do I begin, oh here:
The universe does not expand (or not expand, as you seem to claim) because you see no reason for it to do so... I don't see a reason why we need to have other stars around us, but we dodad said:
PROVE IT! The stars shine for us, and the universe is in the state it is because of us.
it's completely independent of our need to expand living onto another planet... you and I are just passengers tagging along for the ride going wherever our galaxy is taking us
No. Speak for yourself. I never bought in to the philosophy that we are insignificant little beasts.
Why don't you show us who confirmed your expansion where? I think they saw you coming.And finally you get to the point
I spent an entire 15 minutes of my life reading your comments, replying and etc., I think you have succeeded in wasting people's time, but you will have a hard time proving that the Universe is NOT expanding. If you really have proof that the Universe is not expanding please present it to the scientific community and see what happens
ou misunderstand. I need not disprove what is not proven, any more than I need to disprove the tooth fairy.
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #209
dad said:
I can't say that you do, but you believe that it's not happening... as I said, everybody can believe whatever they want to believe. For example, I may believe that inertia doesn't exist no matter what Newton's laws state, and I have the right to believe that. Unfortunately inertia does exist and I would be wrong if I tried to argue otherwise.
You prove it
There are some 6 billion people on the earth right now: in the realms of galactic existence we are nothing more than cosmic dust; even the Biblical accounts tell us that we are dust, or at least that's what we're originally made of
and that's how we shall go: ashes to ashes, dust to dust (obviously thats not from the bible, but it's often associated with Christian funerals).Einstein and Hubble?!
[/quote]
Actually it is confirmed that mostly every galaxy in the universe is moving away from each-other: EXPANDING! So to elaborate your point, we would also say that we need not disprove what is not proven (for example God's existence) any more than we need to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. Thus you and I are on the same plane, I would totally agree with you!
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #210
Inertia has nothing to do with what the creation state was. Focus.doGoN said:
With science, that cannot be addressed, ...our destiny. With the bible it can.You prove it
The fact that God made a lot of space for us does not mean we are3 unimportant at all. on the contrary. We are only dust in this state temporary universe. We are as gods, and destined to judge angels, in the big picture.There are some 6 billion people on the earth right now: in the realms of galactic existence we are nothing more than cosmic dust; even the Biblical accounts tell us that we are dust, or at least that's what we're originally made of
Not for long! We are stardust, we are golden, we are forever.
Show us how. You can;t, can you? Ha.
Really now? How so? Precisely.
So to elaborate your point, we would also say that we need not disprove what is not proven (for example God's existence) any more than we need to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. Thus you and I are on the same plane, I would totally agree with you!
Right. You need not do that, cause you can't. If you CLAIMED to do so as science, why, then, we would have to call you onto the carpet.
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #211
We're talking about expanding universe not creation statedad said:
. Focus My point still stands: if you don't believe that the universe is expanding that's your prerogative. I guess I'm still not sure how YOU prove that the universe is not expanding, if that is your claim (which I'm still uncertain of).In your earlier comments on this topic I noticed that you suggest that the Bible can tell us if the universe is expanding or not, since the bible has existed for a long time, it has "weight" and is important to millions of people. I don't see where you prove your claim, nor does it make any sense: "science" unlike religion is the same throughout the world. Newton's laws apply everywhere in the known Universe, but Christianity only applies to people who believe in it, so I think that science has more "weight" and is important to not millions, but billions of people. As a matter of fact science is older than the bible
, thus it has more weight. But since length of existence and "weight" are no factors for proving or disproving something, both of our arguments would be disqualified- though I went through this exercise to show you that even by your standards science would have greater "weight". Nope, with the bible it can't be addressed, because you can't prove that the bible is right
, if you can then do so ... If the Universe is not expanding, what would be our benefit? You claim that the Universe is in the state that it is in order to benefit humanity... then if it's expanding how does it not benefit humanity?Prove that there is another state. That's your belief, prove it! Prove that God made the space, prove that we are important, prove that the universe is temporary, prove that we are "as gods", prove that we're destined to judge angels, prove that your "big picture" exists
. I am waiting You don't know what you're talking about: you can't be stardust, gold and forever at the same time
, these concepts describe different things.I don't have to, they diddad said:
If you're interested then read up on it.I'm not running a physics/astronomy class, but you should read up on Hubble's findings and how he proved that the Universe is Expanding. Heck... I'll do it
:First of we start with the Hubble law which is expressed by the formula
where v is the recessional velocity, typically expressed in km/s. H0 is Hubble's constant and corresponds to the value of H (often termed the Hubble parameter which is a value that is time dependent) in the Friedmann equations taken at the time of observation denoted by the subscript 0. This value is the same throughout the universe for a given comoving time. D is the comoving distance from the galaxy to the observer, measured in megaparsecs (Mpc), in the 3-space defined by given cosmological time. (Recession velocity is just v = dD/dt). As the formula implies, in very distant objects, v can be larger than c.
Then we account for the value of Hubble parameter changes over time either increasing or decreasing depending on the sign of the so-called deceleration parameter q which is defined by:
In a universe with a deceleration parameter equal to zero, it follows that H = 1/t, where t is the time since the Big Bang. A non-zero, time-dependent value of q simply requires integration of the Friedmann equations backwards from the present time to the time when the comoving horizon size was zero.
Finally we compute the Hubble constant, which though debated has been computed in August 2006, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, a team from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) found the Hubble constant to be 77 (km/s)/Mpc. The consistency of the measurements from all these methods lends support to both the measured value of H0 and the Lambda-CDM model.
Studies conducted by NASA which used the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe to analyze the universe found that indeed the universe is expanding:
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/sci ... nding.html
All an all, this stuff is pretty easy to find and if you spend some time going through the calculations (which I know you won't), you will find that Hubble's Law applies very well to the Expanding Universe model.
Right. I told you what to do about the science part, read Hubble's discoveries and conclusions. As far as you proving your theory, I'm still waitingdad said:Right. You need not do that, cause you can't. If you CLAIMED to do so as science, why, then, we would have to call you onto the carpet.So to elaborate your point, we would also say that we need not disprove what is not proven (for example God's existence) any more than we need to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. Thus you and I are on the same plane, I would totally agree with you!
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #212
His arguments are very similar to the tactics that Hovind used to blind people. Scare tactics to make you question science as something sinister. Demonizing science as having a "no god" agenda, and therefore all its evidence is biased.
Example, after watching a video of clips fossils and drawings of the animals showing a line of species, Hovind response "See. They do not have evidence so they draw pictures on fancy computers to make you believe that there is evidence. But, in reality, its science fiction!"
Lame rebuttal and certainly moronic.
Example, after watching a video of clips fossils and drawings of the animals showing a line of species, Hovind response "See. They do not have evidence so they draw pictures on fancy computers to make you believe that there is evidence. But, in reality, its science fiction!"
Lame rebuttal and certainly moronic.
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #213
So called tactics aside, either you can prove your needed same state past or not. You can't. It might be a good tactic to know what you are talking about, and back up so called science claims. Since it opposes and exalts it'elf against God's word, and can't be supported why not expose it for the vile myth that it demonstrably is?VaultZero4Me said:
[/quote:bb0b8]
No more than raising that lame duck, red herring, strawman here. I never questioned ANY evidence I only question your lack of it! Focus.
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #214
Again, you make little sense in your comments. You asked for scientific proof and I gave you as thorough an explanation as I could fit in a reasonable amount of space, but you ignore what was written and you just repeat the same thing that you said before. Obviously you didn't even read it, but that's besides the point.dad said:
Science does NOT oppose God's word, again you make a statement which is incorrect and blatantly illogical. Show me at least a valid account of God's word which is in contradiction with Science. Show me where God says that space is NOT expanding.
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #215
Nonsense. You never BEGAN to support the mother of all assumptions that your two bit myths rest on, the state of the universe in the past. If they were anything but two bit, you could support them. You never tried, and you can't. Lurkers, the proof is in the pudding. I said that he could not and would not, and he did not, and will not. Why not??? because it just ain't so.doGoN said:
Not actual science, observed and tested science, of course not. You have none of that at all, as we all now can see for your foundational claim! Busted!
Well, if it is, it has nothing to do with the reasons you think it does. I don't care if it is or not. I do care about your so called science claims. This temporary universe is simply not going to be here long. You would need to show it always was and will be, if any of your claims were valid. Otherwise, How would anything this soon to be no more universe does or does not do mean it would do the same in the future? So far, all we have is redshift, and the CMB, and other present universe phenomena that are assumed to represent how it was and will be.
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #216
Listen, Redshift/CMB is proven... like it or not. What you're proposing is that the Universe has varying states, which is an assumption which makes no sense to begin with- it has no merit and reasonable evidence to support such idea, so how can one support it?dad said:
Uhm... I did try, and I showed you on a high level Hubble's laws and equations. Although in reality nobody can provide you with 100% conviction that the laws of the Universe haven't changed since it's creation, there is no need to. Being 99.99% sure is how Science accounts for errors, the likelihood that the Universe had different laws of physics after it was created is that little. So you're arguing a point which really makes no sense- you're arguing that there is a 0.01% chance that something isn't correct, thus we should not use our assumption on the basis of possible error. If you have taken any science classes you will know that science never makes 100% claims, it always makes less than that. Every scientific method/tool is always less than 100% correct, but we don't dismiss it's results because the possibility for error is so small.
But Redshift and CMB ARE actual science. They use methods which are currently observed and tested. If you have proof that these methods are incorrect, then please present your proof... you are yet to do that. Your only claim is that due to the negligent chance that the Universe laws are NOT constant, then we should dismiss our findings. This would mean that we should dismiss ANY scientific findings even those "observed and tested"- if you apply a theory then apply it across the board, not to just one specific case.
Redshift and CMB are as valid as physics themselves... what you're claiming is that physics cannot be applied in the past due to an off chance that the laws of the Universe were not the same. Again, science does account for that because it never makes 100% claims, it always accounts for the possibility of errors, but if the possibility of errors is SO negligent then the results are accepted and stated as such.
So now your entire argument hangs not on the Bible, God, etc. but on an off chance that the laws of the Universe are not constant. If you don't like the claim that the Universe may end existing as we know it, then that's your prerogative, but it is no merit for dismissing the validity of the methods and laws applied to get to that conclusion (especially when you have no proof that the methods/laws currently used are incorrect).
V
VaultZero4Me
Guest
- Thread starter
- #217
That my friends, is a clear example of "Proofs in the pudding". You bend the bible and science to meet your needs. You are saying how God could have or could not have made things. That sounds a little presumptuous to me
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #218
No, you listen, no one questioned redshift or CMB. What the heaven are you on about now??? Of course this universe has laws, and if we for example see red shifting, it NOW is only caused by say, light moving away from us. So what? The question is, what WAS it caused by in the universe that was at the time? Get it? How it now works is only relative to the present state. You need to prove that the universe was in this state, if you want to base stuff on that premise! Otherwise you are just making stuff up.doGoN said:
I do not say our laws changed since they came to be! You only assume that was when the universe also came to be, but let's see you evidence that claim.
No, different laws, not different laws of physics. Physical only laws of physics are temporary universe laws. What changed was created state laws, and we were left with this universe state, and our present laws. We are the change, no one is claiming our silly laws changed.
On what basis do YOU set the odds, precisely? You have no clue. How would you know?? The created state involves the spiritual and physical, not just the physical. Science by nature is limited to the physical.
Science does nor enter into the picture unless there is science to say the state ofr the universe was the one way, or the other. You are a demo that it has nothing to say about it. Live with your severe limitations. I do not fault people for having limited science, but I do fault them for pretending, claiming, and making stuff up, and calling it science.
Yes they ARE!! But WERE they at the time of creation, and the far past?? The answer is you and science do not know. Fess up.
No, just stop trying to apply what is present state to somewhere else, unless you can prove it also was present state. Meanwhile like a little fishbowl, our observations are limited to the present laws and universe.
Whatever science does does not matter or enter into it unless there is science involved. Science of the present natural, and you simply can't show there was. You have a myth only.
NO chance at all involved. Science has no clue, and the bible definitely says this earth will pass away, and heavens. It also describes a very different past than could have existed under the present state universe.
Of course the universe will end as we know it. I like it. I don't need proof science methods are incorrect, they are correct I assume, for the here and now where they apply. If you want to apply them to infinity and beyond, the onus is on you to pony up big time with some hard science, and facts and evidence and proofs.
G
Guest
Guest
- Thread starter
- #219
So we conclude that right now the Universe is Expandingdad said:
... nobody is claiming that it was true in the past. Only you want to have proof of that.Yes they ARE!! But WERE they at the time of creation, and the far past?? The answer is you and science do not know. Fess up.
No, just stop trying to apply what is present state to somewhere else, unless you can prove it also was present state. Meanwhile like a little fishbowl, our observations are limited to the present laws and universe.
Of course the universe will end as we know it. I like it. I don't need proof science methods are incorrect, they are correct I assume, for the here and now where they apply. If you want to apply them to infinity and beyond, the onus is on you to pony up big time with some hard science, and facts and evidence and proofs.[/quote:07f60][/quote:07f60]
To summarize this whole thing, here are your claims:
1. The state of the Universe is "unknown" prior to or at the moment of creation.
2. The state of the Universe is "unknown" if we look really far back in time (you could say the same for really far ahead in time).
3. CMB and redshift are correct in the current time.
4. Because of 1 and 2, we can't say that the Universe is expanding.
My claim:
1. I agree with your 1, even in science that is a complete unknown.
2. I agree with your 2, but I we have observed no evidence to suggest that the "state of the Universe" has changed- and by that I don't mean expansion but the physical laws within it. There is no evidence that sheds doubt on the conclusion that the laws of physics have been different billions of years a go-Expanding Universe is proven through physics.
3. Here is how we know that the Universe is expanding: if you look at the tail lights of a bus and you see them getting further and further away, then you know that the bus is driving away. You don't need to know if the bus was driving 5 minutes ago, or if it was standing 5 minutes ago, you just see it driving away... same with the expansion of the Universe: we observe that the Galaxies are drifting away, and they're all drifting away from us, thus we conclude that the Universe is expanding.
4. No. 3 is in agreement with your 3.
We don't need to prove that the Universe wasn't expanding billions of years ago, we're saying that the Universe is expanding now. I think that it addresses the question correctly: "Is Space Expanding?" YES, it is expanding now. If the question is "Was Space expanding 50 billion years ago?" or "Will Space continue to expanding for another 100 billion years?" then it would be a completely different issue.
D
dad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #220
No we conclude no such thing, just look at the reasons they think it is expanding. Like CMB radiation. If that was a leftover effect from the change in the created universe to the present state, then, there are no old ages, or big bang involved. You simply assume a whole slough of things went on in your imaginary, non evidence past state. Same with red shift. Now, we know a certain thing causes redshift, but what also may have caused it in a different universe, and a coming into this temporary state?? All you have is a myth.doGoN said:So we conclude that right now the Universe is Expanding
No, that is patently obvious, I am saying it was unknown till after the flood. That is what the bible indicates upon a close examination. Science has nothing to say about it.
By science, of course. It is a creature of this present state fishbowl only.
They exist, yes, your myth explanations of why are another matter.
You can't say by PO (Physical Only) science. No.
You have so, red shifting, and the CMB, for example. You just assumed it all came from a same state universe, and it's laws.
How so?? There was no billions of years ago, for starters, so your claim is bogus. There is no science to give us the needed same state past, so it is not a science claim. It is preposterous, anti bible balderdash.
No, that is how we know a bus is pulling away in this present universe. It has nothing to do with why the light was redshifted as it became the universe state we now know. Your story only has to do with your assumptions and beliefs that what happens now, caused all we now see. That is myth. That is trying to set the clocks of the past to the present. No can do.
Well, I guess some agreement is a good thing.
And I am saying baloney. The reasons you use are myth based only. You offer same past state based interpretations of evidences. I agree with the red shifting, and CMB, and all else, but not that these PO universe things caused what happened in the far past. That is religion.
You need a same past state in the past for red shift and CMB to mean what you claim they mean. You don't have it. You never will.