[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[dad]

Here is one for you dad:

Actually, we are all trapped in Thursdayism. All memories that you have before last thursday are false implants. Our universe actually only started last thursday. There is nothing in our actual past except the implanted memories. Also, the nucleus of every star is actually Godiva Chocolate. Yummy! I wish we could get to the center!

How original. Your point seems to be 'believe without any proof whatsoever in a same past, or there can be no reality'. Nonsense. Many of us accept reasonable proofs such as movies, calendars, witnesses, computer files, etc etc. You have NOTHING for your myth. Do not dare to compare it to the real world.

I know. That actually makes so little sense, that I think I lost an IQ point or 2 after reading it.

Ouch. Sorry to hear that, sounds like you need all you can get hold of.

Does he not understand the consequences of raising the speed of light? Has he not heard of Einstein's theory of relativity? E=MC^2. That is basic stuff. Raise the speed of light, and you change everything.

Yes, he does, and does not say there was anything like that. It was not a change IN our universe, our universe IS the change.

Well, anyway, judging by the arguments this guy is presenting, I think I will stop trying to rebut. Looks like you have done that all along, but he just refuses to look at the veracity of his own arguments.

[/quote]

You can't prove your bogus same state past. Cut the bull.

 

[dad]

I do not care if he was a juggling bear in the circus, it doesn't change the statement.

The fact that he was a Christian monk puts it in perspective.

Usually the simplest solution is the correct one.

Only in the land of where we have some idea of what we are talking about!

Haha they weren't actually blind. Double blind means that the participants nor the people involved knew which group they were in.

Right, I was having a little fun. Heck, this being a temporary universe, and all, we need a little of that.

Yeah double blind is such bad science. If people do not know what people think is going to happen, it is not possible to corrupt the data by predispositions. Everyone knows that you need data that is corrupt, otherwise it's just science.

You think you need corrupt data? I see. Double blind is a good term then. Blind to the limits of the physical, and to the spiritual.

Yes there is nothing more solid than being able to see a tree from the for corners of the universe, or world wide total flood. The bible is such a good science book.

The tree I think you reference in such a weak way, was a tree in a dream. Is dreams all that you have on offer here, in a science forum???

Haha just like I make the extraordinary claim that everything before last thursday was real and not just false memories.

I agree. It is a lot like your same state past claim. Thanks for that.

I guess I should go out and find evidence that Thursdayism is a false idea.

Actually, I doubt there are any that actually believe it. Don't bother. There are millions and millions, and billions that believe that this heavens and earth will pass away, however. Maybe defend your false science claim that they are the be all end all. That would be relevant.

 

[dad]

His posts are so illogical and self contradicting, I am beginning to wonder if they are not trollish in nature. Not accusing you dad, but your line of reasoning is to just state that the unfalsifiable nature of your claims make them so.

You talk as if the same past were falsifiable.

Does it make sense to you if I say:

You can't travel to the center of the sun, therefore you can't prove the claim that nuclear fusion is the source of the energy it emits. Therefore, my claim that there is a man in the center who has a furnace he keeps shoveling more and more coal into, powers the sun is just as valid.

No. A man would melt.

Does the fact you can't travel to the center make my claim more valid? No it does not. There is a tremendous amount of science backing the claim of it being a fusion reaction, and none to back the claim of the magic furnace and coal.

If anyone questioned how the sun now works, you might have a point. As it is you don't.

Bring some evidence to the table and we can discuss if there was a split sometime in the past, and the ramifications of it. In fact, if you can bring such evidence, and it can hold up to scrutiny, I will fight for you to win a Nobel prize myself

You seem to think I want a prize. You ask scientific evidence of a past state of the universe science can know nothing about, since it assumes the present is the only kid on the block. Yet, you offer none that it was here in the past. Think about how low you are stooping to defend your myth here.

 

[dad]

The expansion of space is also supported by the Bible which states that God "stretched out the heavens" in Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13 and Jeremiah 10:12. God "stretched out the heavens", and following Newton's first law dictates that once in motion the stars will remain in motion. Simple and it even agrees with the Bible . Everything points to the fact that Space is Expanding (even by Biblical accounts), so dad: Space IS Expanding however you look at it.

You assume that Newton's law applied when He stretched it out. You assume that it applied after He stretched it out.

Even more, if ALL of the stars/galaxies are within 6000 light years of us, then we would all fry to death- YES RIGHT NOW WE WOULD FRY TO DEATH!

No one says that silly thing. Not present light years.

But when I asked dad how long does it take for light to travel from a galaxy 1 billion ly away, then he said 1 billion ly (now, but in pre-split it happened in days). Dad's admission that light has traveled for 1 billion years is in DIRECT contradiction with the claim that all stars/galaxies are less than 6k ly away: if the universe is not more than 6k years old we would not see the stars.

You misunderstood. I ONLY use light years for distance, NOT time. It marks distance in the form of how slow present light travels.

Here is the reasoning: we see the stars, some are billions of light years away, it takes that long for light to get here-> the stars/universe has existed for AT LEAST that long.

No, only if it was present light that also was here in the far past. You need, guess what? --a same past state universe for that. You do not have one, save in your dreams.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Actually, I doubt there are any that actually believe it. Don't bother. There are millions and millions, and billions that believe that this heavens and earth will pass away, however. Maybe defend your false science claim that they are the be all end all. That would be relevant.

The rest of you post is nonsense, so Ill cherry pick from here on out.

How did you turn whatever I am saying into an after life debate? I thought we were debating some kind of split theory you are postulating? Is that a straw man attempt?

You talk as if the same past were falsifiable.

Actually it is

If you can prove evidence that shows a different past state. Maybe some book by the ancient egyptians called "The Whacky Nature of Light" or "Road Atlas to the Supernatural Light Highway", hell maybe even a hallmark card stating "So You Are Turning the Big 900!".

Until then, I go with Occam's Razor and say the past is the same as today, and that it is nonsense to believe that there was some radical shift in physics 4k years ago, when records of civilizations go back at least 10k yrs ago with no such shift. In fact, fossils 10 million years ago look pretty much normal.

If anyone questioned how the sun now works, you might have a point. As it is you don't.

It was showing the silliness of your claims.

You seem to think I want a prize. You ask scientific evidence of a past state of the universe science can know nothing about, since it assumes the present is the only kid on the block. Yet, you offer none that it was here in the past. Think about how low you are stooping to defend your myth here

Yes. I am stooping soooo low that I am asking you to cough up for evidence for your spectacular claim.

Where is it at?

Oh, you do not have any. Oh ok.

What? You don't need any? I do not think thats right.....

Oh, it is right because you say it is. Ok. Whatever floats your boat.

You misunderstood. I ONLY use light years for distance, NOT time. It marks distance in the form of how slow present light travels.

But the implication of seeing a star that is 6 billion LY away is that, there as been 6 billion years since the time the light left, and the present time. Otherwise, why even use the term LY when referencing a distance?

No, only if it was present light that also was here in the far past. You need, guess what? --a same past state universe for that. You do not have one, save in your dreams.

We have given you tons of evidence. You just refuse to listen. You clasp your ears closed with you hands and go "Nananana boo boo, I cant hear you. Different state! Different state!"

 

[Guest]

That doesn't mean that the speed of light changed...

You are right, if you mean the speed of OUR present light. No one suggests that. What happened was that we had a creation week, and far stars being made for man on earth to see. That does mean it could NOT be our present light. Get it?

I get it, it means that the stars were created for man to see that's all it says! THAT'S ALL! It doesn't mean that the speed of light was faster, it just means that they were created for man to see them. Your quote are actually incorrect, here is the only quote about stars in Genesis:
"He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. "(Genesis 1: 16)

It doesn't say anything about the speed of light, or if they were visible right away, it just says that they were created with the purpose of lighting the Earth at night. That's all to it! NO SPEED OF LIGHT THERE!
That's all the Bible says about stars in the creation week, nothing about the speed of light.

The expansion of space is also supported by the Bible which states that God "stretched out the heavens" in Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13 and Jeremiah 10:12. God "stretched out the heavens", and following Newton's first law dictates that once in motion the stars will remain in motion. Simple and it even agrees with the Bible . Everything points to the fact that Space is Expanding (even by Biblical accounts), so dad: Space IS Expanding however you look at it.

You assume that Newton's law applied when He stretched it out. You assume that it applied after He stretched it out.

I assume that Newton's laws applied after the heavens were stretched, that is correct Actually, that is the case, after the heavens were "stretched out", either by God's hand or by the explosion of the Big Bang, then Newton's second laws applied and we continue to observe an expanding universe. The galaxies/stars are moving away.

Even more, if ALL of the stars/galaxies are within 6000 light years of us, then we would all fry to death- YES RIGHT NOW WE WOULD FRY TO DEATH!

No one says that silly thing. Not present light years.

Oh, dad oh Dad But the Universe, according to you, was created 6000 years ago. We are seeing all of the stars, thus all of the stars are no more than 6000 light years away.
By the way, you DID say that the stars are 6000 light years away, what a great way to sneak out of that one: "not present light years", then what light years did you use? And if NOT present light years, then how did you come up with 6000 when you don't even know how fast was the "fast light". You claim that fast light travels billions of miles in days, weeks or months, well if you can't provide an accurate figure for the speed of light, then how do you figure 6000 light years of "fast light"?
Lastly, you talk about the "fast light" but you have shown NO reference to the Bible that claims that the light was faster. You have NO proof, not even theological, that the light was faster!

But when I asked dad how long does it take for light to travel from a galaxy 1 billion ly away, then he said 1 billion ly (now, but in pre-split it happened in days). Dad's admission that light has traveled for 1 billion years is in DIRECT contradiction with the claim that all stars/galaxies are less than 6k ly away: if the universe is not more than 6k years old we would not see the stars.

You misunderstood. I ONLY use light years for distance, NOT time. It marks distance in the form of how slow present light travels.

Dad, if you're using light years for distance you're also using it for time. Light years is the distance covered by light in one year, thus if you say that something is x light years away, then it will take light x years to travel that light. Any star 6 million light years away would generate light that takes 6 million years to get here. Give it up Dad, give it up. I have quoted you saying, and I can provide the quote again, that the light would take 1 billion years to get to the Earth from a star 1 billion years away, you said that ;)

For example: if I say that I'm traveling at 65 mph, you say that you are 65 miles away from me, then it will take me 1 hour to get there. Simple as that.

Here is the reasoning: we see the stars, some are billions of light years away, it takes that long for light to get here-> the stars/universe has existed for AT LEAST that long.

No, only if it was present light that also was here in the far past. You need, guess what? --a same past state universe for that. You do not have one, save in your dreams.

Myth dad, MYTH. I told you, for the 100th time, I don't need that; YOU claim that I do, but I don't. You have shown NO proof, no reference to the Bible, of the speed of light being different. I don't need same past state, I need you to show proof (or even a reference to the Bible), where the speed of light is specifically addressed . You don't have ANY of that, give it up!
My theory works because you don't have any proof that it doesn't, you claim that light speed was different, but you show NO reference/proof that it was.

Dad, unless you come up with proof that the speed of light was different, then don't even bother trying to talk about this. You have no argument, just a made up claim which you pulled out of a hat, well guess what: you may pull a rabbit out of the hat, but the hat is still empty. Stick with the Unicorn.

 

[dad]

The rest of you post is nonsense, so Ill cherry pick from here on out.

Glad you think you are the judge of what is sound reason, or not.

How did you turn whatever I am saying into an after life debate? I thought we were debating some kind of split theory you are postulating? Is that a straw man attempt?

The past and future states are merged, created states, apparently. We are the odd man out in the present state. So the key to the past is actually the future, not the present.

"You talk as if the same past were falsifiable. "

Actually it is

Falsify it then!!

If you can prove evidence that shows a different past state. Maybe some book by the ancient egyptians called "The Whacky Nature of Light" or "Road Atlas to the Supernatural Light Highway", hell maybe even a hallmark card stating "So You Are Turning the Big 900!".

Well, the most well preserved, and sacredly kept, and guarded records are from the bible. That does talk of a very different world, and how things worked in our past. Very early Sumer and Egyptian records may also have clues, but we should not ask for proof of the state of the universe there, when science has none.

Until then, I go with Occam's Razor and say the past is the same as today, and that it is nonsense to believe that there was some radical shift in physics 4k years ago, when records of civilizations go back at least 10k yrs ago with no such shift. In fact, fossils 10 million years ago look pretty much normal.

You admit there is no reason to believe your myth then, but have decided to religiously cling to it. Fine. Records go back about 4400 years or less, last time I checked. If you have any from before that, show them to us, and how you date them, precisely. You will find it is ONLY your myth that dates them. Really. Give us your best shot, and find out why.

If anyone questioned how the sun now works, you might have a point. As it is you don't.

It was showing the silliness of your claims.[/quote]
Only if the sun would always work as it now does, in other words, if the universe fabric were the same. As evidenced here repeatedly, you have no idea what it was like. Your claims of what the sun will do or not are mere prophesies of how the universe will be the same, or was.

Yes. I am stooping soooo low that I am asking you to cough up for evidence for your spectacular claim.

Your claim is a so called science claim, so needs to be evidenced in a scientific way. My claim is after the fact, realizing you cannot say what the past was like by science. My claims only need bible support. You can take them or leave them, God did not arrange it so that they could be proved at the moment. You can believe His version, or the devil's, either one. But you may not call it science, you are busted.

What? You don't need any? I do not think thats right.....

Oh, it is right because you say it is. Ok. Whatever floats your boat.

The evidence is that you have no evidence for your myth, I don't need any, since I don't claim science goes there as you do. The evidence is that you cannot support your so called science myth. The evidence is that it is unknown to science. That is all I need to evidence, and you are living proof.

Beyond the known, talking about the unknown, I can make a bible case, a very good one. I crossed my Ts and dotted my Is.

But the implication of seeing a star that is 6 billion LY away is that, there as been 6 billion years since the time the light left, and the present time. Otherwise, why even use the term LY when referencing a distance?

Not at all. The implication is that this universe has slow light in this state. Only IF there was also a present state universe and light, would any implication be as you imply. You have not provided the proofs and evidence for that. I do not use baseless assumptions that are anti God as my implications, thank you very much. You would need to do more than imply, and assume and preach, and believe.

We have given you tons of evidence. You just refuse to listen. You clasp your ears closed with you hands and go "Nananana boo boo, I cant hear you. Different state! Different state!"

None at all, as anyone reading can see. Light far away and having a certain speed and properties in this state universe does not mean squat to the future, or far past. Not unless it was a same state universe. Face it.

 

[dad]

I get it, it means that the stars were created for man to see that's all it says! THAT'S ALL! It doesn't mean that the speed of light was faster, it just means that they were created for man to see them. Your quote are actually incorrect, here is the only quote about stars in Genesis:
"He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. "(Genesis 1: 16)

It doesn't say anything about the speed of light, or if they were visible right away, it just says that they were created with the purpose of lighting the Earth at night. That's all to it! NO SPEED OF LIGHT THERE!
That's all the Bible says about stars in the creation week, nothing about the speed of light.

Do you know what signs are? They are something meant to see. The stars far away, at least a lot of them, had to be seen by the man He just created. The light had to get to earth. Can light from millions of present light years away get here in a week, for Adam to see? No. How about a man's lifetime? No. We saw them, so it could not be present light.

I assume that Newton's laws applied after the heavens were stretched, that is correct

So what? Prove it, or it is just in your head.

Actually, that is the case, after the heavens were "stretched out", either by God's hand or by the explosion of the Big Bang, then Newton's second laws applied and we continue to observe an expanding universe. The galaxies/stars are moving away.

How do we know that? We already saw that your claims of red shifting, and CMB do not show us that, except under your myth, and assumptions. What else you got?

Oh, dad oh Dad But the Universe, according to you, was created 6000 years ago. We are seeing all of the stars, thus all of the stars are no more than 6000 light years away.

You misunderstand. Even stars billions of light years away are thousands of years old. The reason that the former light in the former state universe got here fast, is because it was the different state. Our light is what was left at the split. It NOW works a certain way, we cannot use that light to measure how spiritual light traveled. The eternal state created universe does include the spiritual, and the physical.

By the way, you DID say that the stars are 6000 light years away, what a great way to sneak out of that one: "not present light years", then what light years did you use?

For distance I use present light years, That has nothing to do with real time of the past.

And if NOT present light years, then how did you come up with 6000 when you don't even know how fast was the "fast light". You claim that fast light travels billions of miles in days, weeks or months, well if you can't provide an accurate figure for the speed of light, then how do you figure 6000 light years of "fast light"?

Easy, the universe was created about 6000 years ago. All former state light got here fast. I do not know that there is a speed of light in the eternal state?! That is something we have, yes. But, see, the created state is also spiritual, and in sync with the will of the Great Spirit. Remember, He spoke, and the heavens were made?! Unless you have some evidence, I see no reason why, despite how fast former light could travel, certain light may have needed to get somewhere faster? Example: Maybe not every star in the universe was meant to be seen by early man, despite the fact, that it could have gotten here if it was desired!
This state universe is physical only, and more or less apparently homogeneous. The created state may be more flexible to the needs of man, and will of God.


Lastly, you talk about the "fast light" but you have shown NO reference to the Bible that claims that the light was faster. You have NO proof, not even theological, that the light was faster!

But when I asked dad how long does it take for light to travel from a galaxy 1 billion ly away, then he said 1 billion ly (now, but in pre-split it happened in days). Dad's admission that light has traveled for 1 billion years is in DIRECT contradiction with the claim that all stars/galaxies are less than 6k ly away: if the universe is not more than 6k years old we would not see the stars.

You misunderstood. I ONLY use light years for distance, NOT time. It marks distance in the form of how slow present light travels.

Dad, if you're using light years for distance you're also using it for time. Light years is the distance covered by light in one year, thus if you say that something is x light years away, then it will take light x years to travel that light.

Yes, but we have different "its"! If we mean the former light, IT could get here fast. If we mean this present light, IT is slow. If the universe change was 4400 years ago, say, then all light at that time in our universe was left as present light. Naturally, wherever we look in the universe we would expect it to move at it's slow speed. Our problem is that all we can observe is this state, If we could look 4900 years, into the different state past, we would see another universe and light, and laws at work.

Any star 6 million light years away would generate light that takes 6 million years to get here. Give it up Dad, give it up. I have quoted you saying, and I can provide the quote again, that the light would take 1 billion years to get to the Earth from a star 1 billion years away, you said that ;)

In the present universe it would do that. Thousands of years ago, in the different universe, it took days maybe.

For example: if I say that I'm traveling at 65 mph, you say that you are 65 miles away from me, then it will take me 1 hour to get there. Simple as that.

Right. But you were not there thousands of years ago in the different state traveling. Face it. Neither was our present light. You just have assumed it was, and set the clocks to the temporary present.

Myth dad, MYTH. I told you, for the 100th time, I don't need that; YOU claim that I do, but I don't.

Tell us then, what was the state of the universe in the far past, if NOT the same?? Make up your mind. Everything you say speaks ot trying to hold the past to present rules and laws. Focus.

You have shown NO proof, no reference to the Bible, of the speed of light being different.

Done in this post.

I don't need same past state,

If you claim the universe is expanding you do. If you claim old ages you do. Obviously.

I need you to show proof (or even a reference to the Bible), where the speed of light is specifically addressed . You don't have ANY of that, give it up!

Done, as plain as a neon sign.

My theory works because you don't have any proof that it doesn't, you claim that light speed was different, but you show NO reference/proof that it was.

No, your theory, whatever it is depends on the present being the key to the past, by assumption only.

Since the future of the bible also is the different universe, we can see that we have a light there that we do not have now in the universe, so that we need no 'light of the sun'. How plain is that??

 

[Guest]

Do you know what signs are? They are something meant to see. The stars far away, at least a lot of them, had to be seen by the man He just created. The light had to get to earth. Can light from millions of present light years away get here in a week, for Adam to see? No. How about a man's lifetime? No. We saw them, so it could not be present light.

Were you there to see it? NO. On top of that you're misquoting the Bible, how about you show me the exact quote that mentions ANYTHING about the speed of light? You got NOTHING! First you make up quotes from the bible. The Bible never says anything about the "far stars", that's your statement and it's a total fabrication.

I assume that Newton's laws applied after the heavens were stretched, that is correct

So what? Prove it, or it is just in your head.

I don't need to, because I didn't specify how long after the Universe was created hahahah

Actually, that is the case, after the heavens were "stretched out", either by God's hand or by the explosion of the Big Bang, then Newton's second laws applied and we continue to observe an expanding universe. The galaxies/stars are moving away.

How do we know that? We already saw that your claims of red shifting, and CMB do not show us that, except under your myth, and assumptions. What else you got?

It says it in the Bible: "God stretched out the heavens", and eventually Newton's laws came into the equation... I don't care when they did, but they did and they're working just like God designed them to Even if I make an assumption at least I'm not fabricating quotes from the Bible- GOOD JOB DAD!

You misunderstand. Even stars billions of light years away are thousands of years old. The reason that the former light in the former state universe got here fast, is because it was the different state. Our light is what was left at the split. It NOW works a certain way, we cannot use that light to measure how spiritual light traveled. The eternal state created universe does include the spiritual, and the physical.

OK, so which light are we seeing right now? How can we see a star 1 billion light years away, yet it is only 6k years old, and the "fast light" no longer exists? So if the "fast light" is no longer visible, and we're currently only seeing the "slow light", then how is the star visible?
MYTH DAD MYTH and FABRICATIONS!

By the way, you DID say that the stars are 6000 light years away, what a great way to sneak out of that one: "not present light years", then what light years did you use?

For distance I use present light years, That has nothing to do with real time of the past.

First of all, you said that all of the stars are 6k light years away and you just confirmed that you used "present light years" for distance. So you claim that the stars are both 6k light years away (measured in "present light years" distance), and you also claim that there are stars which are 6000k years old but are billions of light years away. If that is not a contradiction, then I don't know what is!? HAHAHA
DAD GIVE IT UP, You are nothing but a lousy fabricator. You make up biblical quotes, and you try to cook up myths worse than children's fairy tales.

Easy, the universe was created about 6000 years ago. All former state light got here fast. I do not know that there is a speed of light in the eternal state?! That is something we have, yes. But, see, the created state is also spiritual, and in sync with the will of the Great Spirit. Remember, He spoke, and the heavens were made?! Unless you have some evidence, I see no reason why, despite how fast former light could travel, certain light may have needed to get somewhere faster? Example: Maybe not every star in the universe was meant to be seen by early man, despite the fact, that it could have gotten here if it was desired!
This state universe is physical only, and more or less apparently homogeneous. The created state may be more flexible to the needs of man, and will of God.

OK, so what you're saying is that 6000 years ago the Universe was created and there is no speed of light in the "eternal state", so light actually does not travel . That is in COMPLETE contradiction with your statement that there is "fast light", when the light doesn't even travel, it just exists.

So what you're saying is that in the beginning the far stars were not seen... again, in contradiction to every statement that you have made so far that the far stars were seen at all times.

Yes, but we have different "its"! If we mean the former light, IT could get here fast. If we mean this present light, IT is slow. If the universe change was 4400 years ago, say, then all light at that time in our universe was left as present light. Naturally, wherever we look in the universe we would expect it to move at it's slow speed. Our problem is that all we can observe is this state, If we could look 4900 years, into the different state past, we would see another universe and light, and laws at work.

And did we ever see the "fast light"? Were you there 4900 years ago to see the fast light? NO, you just made it up, a complete fabrication. The Bible says NOTHING like that.

Any star 6 million light years away would generate light that takes 6 million years to get here. Give it up Dad, give it up. I have quoted you saying, and I can provide the quote again, that the light would take 1 billion years to get to the Earth from a star 1 billion years away, you said that ;)

In the present universe it would do that. Thousands of years ago, in the different universe, it took days maybe.

But we're seeing the slow light... dad, you got yourself all tangled up. Were you there to see the different light? The Bible says NOTHING about the speed of light, but you keep insisting it exists. It only exists in your head, a head full of fabrications. If you keep telling a lie long enough, you start to believe it yourself!

Myth dad, MYTH. I told you, for the 100th time, I don't need that; YOU claim that I do, but I don't.

Tell us then, what was the state of the universe in the far past, if NOT the same?? Make up your mind. Everything you say speaks ot trying to hold the past to present rules and laws. Focus.

I don't care what the state was... YOU DO, and I don't know why you do. You keep asking me to tell you about something which I don't even care for. I simply care to find out where you determine what the speed of light was before "the split", because the Bible says NOTHING of it.

You have shown NO proof, no reference to the Bible, of the speed of light being different.

Done in this post.

Yah, where is your Bible quote? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the speed of light is even mentioned. You have no proof that it was different, you just have fabrications. First you misquote the Bible, it never says anything about the "far stars" nor does it say anything about the "fast light": TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

[quote="dad"

I don't need same past state,

If you claim the universe is expanding you do. If you claim old ages you do. Obviously.[/quote]
I do claim that the Universe is expanding, but I don't need to know what the past sate was . You have show no proof that the speed of light was different, so it wasn't! You have NO evidence whatsoever, you completely fabricated the whole thing about "fast light".

I need you to show proof (or even a reference to the Bible), where the speed of light is specifically addressed . You don't have ANY of that, give it up!

Done, as plain as a neon sign.

I think your neon sign is using a different type if light, one that is invisible in the current state of the universe HAHAHA You have shown NO Proof, just fabrications and lies. You are nothing but a petty liar. The Bible says nothing of "far stars", "fast light" or the speed of light: NOTHING! You just fabricate stuff because you have no argument.

My theory works because you don't have any proof that it doesn't, you claim that light speed was different, but you show NO reference/proof that it was.

No, your theory, whatever it is depends on the present being the key to the past, by assumption only.

For the millionth time, I don't care what the past state of the Universe is. You can't even prove that the speed of light was different, let alone talking about an entire different state of the Universe! You are a Quack! You are a petty liar! A fabricator! You say things that the Bible never says! That's what I call a liar and a fabricator!

Since the future of the bible also is the different universe, we can see that we have a light there that we do not have now in the universe, so that we need no 'light of the sun'. How plain is that??

Dad, try to understand this: "Since the stars are future universe is different, this state is diverse and it works well. We can count to look at things later and see how they are now, so we don't need to look at much. How clear is that?" LOL
Well not clear at all, you don't even have sentences formed. How about you conjugate and you put a verb and a noun together to make one sentence, like this: "Mike went to the store." or "Dad needs grammar lessons."
Dad, I don't even know why I'm talking to you anymore. You can't put your thoughts into a coherent sentence, yet you try to argue semantics.

I see a pattern now, as a Christian you try to look at where Science "lacks" evidence and you try to plant a miracle there . Well the Earth is NOT flat, but we didn't see the earth from space until 1961. Nobody had really seen if the Earth was round, yet it was still known that it was- even better, for a LONG time Christians argued that the world is flat, and they quoted scripture to support that idea, but they were wrong. We had seen portions of the Earth while flying in airplanes, but nobody had seen the entire picture I will leave you with one last thing: Science is the abundance of evidence, while religion is the lack there of. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

 

[dad]

Were you there to see it? NO.

Was science? No. So science can't say. Neither can you.

On top of that you're misquoting the Bible,

False. Show us where.

how about you show me the exact quote that mentions ANYTHING about the speed of light? You got NOTHING! First you make up quotes from the bible. The Bible never says anything about the "far stars", that's your statement and it's a total fabrication.

All stars are far. If that is news to you, don't blame me. Most are millions or billions of present light year units away. Fact.

I don't need to, because I didn't specify how long after the Universe was created hahahah

Science, however does try to do that. If you want to have something to do with science, and not just hahahaville, you need to deal in facts.

It says it in the Bible: "God stretched out the heavens", and eventually Newton's laws came into the equation... I don't care when they did, but they did and they're working just like God designed them to Even if I make an assumption at least I'm not fabricating quotes from the Bible- GOOD JOB DAD!

You are right. First we had the created state, then present laws came into effect at some point. So???

OK, so which light are we seeing right now?

We see present light.

How can we see a star 1 billion light years away, yet it is only 6k years old, and the "fast light" no longer exists?

Easy. The former universe was separated, spiritual from physical, and we were left in this physical only state. The light that can and does exist in this universe is only a part of the former light. The part we were left with. Perhaps even a part that was affected in the change.

So if the "fast light" is no longer visible, and we're currently only seeing the "slow light", then how is the star visible?
MYTH DAD MYTH and FABRICATIONS!

Because part of the former light exists in the present light, whether affected or not. It still carries information.

First of all, you said that all of the stars are 6k light years away and you just confirmed that you used "present light years" for distance.

Not in distance, but no more than that in real TIME. If the former light traveled fast, today's slow light is no marker.

So you claim that the stars are both 6k light years away (measured in "present light years" distance), and you also claim that there are stars which are 6000k years old but are billions of light years away. If that is not a contradiction, then I don't know what is!? HAHAHA

No. They are billions of light years as present light goes, away in distance. Since present light was not here in the past, when the light already got here, or was on the way, it's speed matters not at all.

DAD GIVE IT UP, You are nothing but a lousy fabricator. You make up biblical quotes, and you try to cook up myths worse than children's fairy tales.

Hopefully such foot stomping tantrums are now unneeded by you, since I explained where you were erring.

OK, so what you're saying is that 6000 years ago the Universe was created and there is no speed of light in the "eternal state", so light actually does not travel .

No. Light got around as needed, but not at present light speeds.

That is in COMPLETE contradiction with your statement that there is "fast light", when the light doesn't even travel, it just exists.

That of course is a nonsense, and hopefully you now understand that.

So what you're saying is that in the beginning the far stars were not seen... again, in contradiction to every statement that you have made so far that the far stars were seen at all times.

Depends on which far stars you mean! ALL are far. We do not know if they all were seen, or something more along the lines of present visible stars.

And did we ever see the "fast light"? Were you there 4900 years ago to see the fast light? NO, you just made it up, a complete fabrication. The Bible says NOTHING like that.

Not at all. God was there, and He has a book. That is how I deduced that present light does not fit the bill. One thing for sure, science was not there.

But we're seeing the slow light... dad, you got yourself all tangled up. Were you there to see the different light? The Bible says NOTHING about the speed of light, but you keep insisting it exists. It only exists in your head, a head full of fabrications. If you keep telling a lie long enough, you start to believe it yourself!

Of course we see the present light. What else would you think we should see? I never said it now exists, I say we do not know by science that it did or did not exist in the past, or will again exist in the future.

I don't care what the state was... YOU DO, and I don't know why you do. You keep asking me to tell you about something which I don't even care for. I simply care to find out where you determine what the speed of light was before "the split", because the Bible says NOTHING of it.

Science does assume that the universe was the same. The bible does say the stars, all of which are far, were for signs, for men.

Yah, where is your Bible quote? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the speed of light is even mentioned. You have no proof that it was different, you just have fabrications. First you misquote the Bible, it never says anything about the "far stars" nor does it say anything about the "fast light": TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

Dealt with that in this post.

I think your neon sign is using a different type if light, one that is invisible in the current state of the universe

Get a grip, man. The sign God made for man was not now, it was long ago.

HAHAHA You have shown NO Proof, just fabrications and lies.

Look who's talking. I have proofs of the type I need for a bible case. You have none of the type you need for a phony science claim.

You are nothing but a petty liar. The Bible says nothing of "far stars", "fast light" or the speed of light: NOTHING! You just fabricate stuff because you have no argument.

It says stars. They are all far. Ask anyone. No way present light could get here from a star even 4 million light years away in a week, or a man's life time. Fess up.

For the millionth time, I don't care what the past state of the Universe is. You can't even prove that the speed of light was different,

It was the same, our present light, since it came to be.

let alone talking about an entire different state of the Universe! You are a Quack! You are a petty liar! A fabricator! You say things that the Bible never says! That's what I call a liar and a fabricator!

Because....you can prove that this state really was here? Or, because you just feel like saying that the bible is a crock?

Dad, try to understand this: "Since the stars are future universe is different, this state is diverse and it works well. We can count to look at things later and see how they are now, so we don't need to look at much. How clear is that?" LOL

Hey, there you go prophesying again. Why? Because it now is that way. You really must be kidding. That is absurd.

Well not clear at all, you don't even have sentences formed. How about you conjugate and you put a verb and a noun together to make one sentence, like this: "Mike went to the store." or "Dad needs grammar lessons."
Dad, I don't even know why I'm talking to you anymore. You can't put your thoughts into a coherent sentence, yet you try to argue semantics.

If you have problems comprehending, simply be honest.

I see a pattern now, as a Christian you try to look at where Science "lacks" evidence and you try to plant a miracle there .

If science lacks, then why not plant whatever we feel like there? Don't blame me for seeking more than the poor little sods can offer. God has all kinds of answers, why toss them out when science as you admit, lacks, and lacks something fierce???

Well the Earth is NOT flat, but we didn't see the earth from space until 1961. Nobody had really seen if the Earth was round, yet it was still known that it was- even better, for a LONG time Christians argued that the world is flat, and they quoted scripture to support that idea, but they were wrong. We had seen portions of the Earth while flying in airplanes, but nobody had seen the entire picture

Wow, glad we resolved that burning issue. I know folks that were alive pre 1961, and none that I am aware thought the earth was flat. You maybe should get mad at you teachers for telling you such silly things.

I will leave you with one last thing: Science is the abundance of evidence, while religion is the lack there of. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

I have a planet full of evidences in millions and millions of test tubes-people. I do not claim science can help with the state of the future or past. Science does assume it was the same. You may assume whatever you wish, just remember, it sure ain't science, or the bible. Work on that.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Your claim is a so called science claim, so needs to be evidenced in a scientific way. My claim is after the fact, realizing you cannot say what the past was like by science. My claims only need bible support. You can take them or leave them, God did not arrange it so that they could be proved at the moment. You can believe His version, or the devil's, either one. But you may not call it science, you are busted.

You do realize the faulty logic here right? Please at least say you understand what you are doing.

Even so, where is the evidence for your claim in the bible? I just remember stories like noahs ark that are beyond physics. Are you suggesting that that stuff actually happened, and it proves a different state because it would need a different state to happen?

If that is your claim than I am not sure what to tell you. The mind is a powerful thing and can warp it self around any faulty logic, no matter how bad, in order to keep believing in something. In my opinion, the story was meant to be metaphorical as a lesson, and may have been based on some localized flooding. It certainly runs close to a Babylonian story of the same time period in which the flood was localized.

The evidence is that you have no evidence for your myth, I don't need any, since I don't claim science goes there as you do. The evidence is that you cannot support your so called science myth. The evidence is that it is unknown to science. That is all I need to evidence, and you are living proof.

Beyond the known, talking about the unknown, I can make a bible case, a very good one. I crossed my Ts and dotted my Is.

No, you dotted your Ts and crossed your Is

All you displayed is a pure bullheadedness to follow corrupt logic and reasoning to the point of disconnection with reality.

Not at all. The implication is that this universe has slow light in this state. Only IF there was also a present state universe and light, would any implication be as you imply. You have not provided the proofs and evidence for that. I do not use baseless assumptions that are anti God as my implications, thank you very much. You would need to do more than imply, and assume and preach, and believe.

actually if the star is six billion LY away in this state, and we are seeing its light in this state, it would have taken six billion years to get here.

Unless you claim is that earth is trapped in current physics, and anything outside of the atmosphere is in the different state.

You do realize that geometry is used to gauge the distance to the stars? They use parallax. The apparent motion as the earth rotates around the sun. If you theory is correct, geometry outside of the earth would have to be false as well. Not just physics. And if that is correct, than man would not be able to have landed on the moon, he would have missed it since the calculations depended on euclidean geometry heavily.

I think you have the assumption that light is some how used to judge star distance. It is geometry that is used. Maybe you should study parallax. Light is only used to quote the distance because it is easier to say 6 billion light years away than, 344 trillion billion miles.

 

[dad]

You do realize the faulty logic here right? Please at least say you understand what you are doing.

No, you must be mistaken. Since you were vague, I can't help you much there.

Even so, where is the evidence for your claim in the bible? I just remember stories like noahs ark that are beyond physics. Are you suggesting that that stuff actually happened, and it proves a different state because it would need a different state to happen?

YES!!! All of it! God was right all along!

If that is your claim than I am not sure what to tell you. The mind is a powerful thing and can warp it self around any faulty logic, no matter how bad, in order to keep believing in something. In my opinion, the story was meant to be metaphorical as a lesson, and may have been based on some localized flooding. It certainly runs close to a Babylonian story of the same time period in which the flood was localized.

Wrong!!! The only way you think it is the same period is because all dates are set to the present universe clock, and especially present decay!!

No, you dotted your Ts and crossed your Is

All you displayed is a pure bullheadedness to follow corrupt logic and reasoning to the point of disconnection with reality.

Prove it!

actually if the star is six billion LY away in this state, and we are seeing its light in this state, it would have taken six billion years to get here.

No! Not if the WHOLE universe changed state! Distance matters not at all.

Unless you claim is that earth is trapped in current physics, and anything outside of the atmosphere is in the different state.

No, the universe we know is all in the temporary state, far as science knows. I have a few questions about some real far away areas, but that is too big for this thread. Let's just assume for now, that the universe is all present state.

You do realize that geometry is used to gauge the distance to the stars? They use parallax. The apparent motion as the earth rotates around the sun. If you theory is correct, geometry outside of the earth would have to be false as well. Not just physics. And if that is correct, than man would not be able to have landed on the moon, he would have missed it since the calculations depended on euclidean geometry heavily.

No, as I said distance matters not at all! The former light could boogie around the created state universe in jig time.

I think you have the assumption that light is some how used to judge star distance. It is geometry that is used. Maybe you should study parallax. Light is only used to quote the distance because it is easier to say 6 billion light years away than, 344 trillion billion miles.

No! Distance matter not. Stars BILLIONS of present light years away were created 6000 years ago, unless they were born after that!

 

[Guest]

Were you there to see it? NO.

Was science? No. So science can't say. Neither can you.

LOL, that's not proof that... that's just you admitting that you can't prove your point hahah.

On top of that you're misquoting the Bible,

False. Show us where.

First of all, the bible doesn't say "far stars", second it doesn't say ANYTHING about the speed of light.

All stars are far. If that is news to you, don't blame me. Most are millions or billions of present light year units away. Fact.

You know exactly what we're talking about. You mention the "far stars" in reference to those 6k light years away and more, don't play dumb here .

You are right. First we had the created state, then present laws came into effect at some point. So???

So it's ENTIRELY possible that God designed the expanding space. There is no evidence in the Bible that God didn't!

OK, so which light are we seeing right now?

We see present light.

I hope by now you understand the dilemma: we see "slow light" and the stars are billions of years away. The "fast light" was replaced by the "slow light", even so we would have to experience a "belt" of darkness where the "slow light" has to catch up to the "fast light" since the "fast light" is not visible anymore. In any case, there WAS no fast light because there is no evidence, not even Biblical references to a faster speed of light. If you have the quote- post it, if you don't have the quote then stop arguing that the speed of light was fast.

How can we see a star 1 billion light years away, yet it is only 6k years old, and the "fast light" no longer exists?

Easy. The former universe was separated, spiritual from physical, and we were left in this physical only state. The light that can and does exist in this universe is only a part of the former light. The part we were left with. Perhaps even a part that was affected in the change.

That does not explain how we're seeing a star 1 billion light years away, when the light that's coming from it is slow and the Universe has exited for only 6k years.

So if the "fast light" is no longer visible, and we're currently only seeing the "slow light", then how is the star visible?
MYTH DAD MYTH and FABRICATIONS!

Because part of the former light exists in the present light, whether affected or not. It still carries information.

Yes? What part of the "present light" contains the "former light information"? LOL haha, Please show us which part of a photon carries remnants of the "former light". I'll save you the time: IT DOESN'T! The current light which we're seeing, EVEN if it DID carry any "fast light" information, would still need to travel 1 billion years to bring us the information. The problem is that if you put a piece from a jet fighter on a flat-bed of a truck and you let the truck go down the highway at 65 mph, then the piece of the jet fighter will get here at 65 mph. So even if the jet can go Mach 2, the piece on the truck can only go 65 mph.

First of all, you said that all of the stars are 6k light years away and you just confirmed that you used "present light years" for distance.

Not in distance, but no more than that in real TIME. If the former light traveled fast, today's slow light is no marker.

OK, so what are you saying? You neither defended nor denied your claim, which happens to be: the stars are 6k light years away (distance), and I have you quoted saying that. So you either believe that the stars are 6k light years away, or they're billions of years away? I have you quoted saying both, which one is it?

So you claim that the stars are both 6k light years away (measured in "present light years" distance), and you also claim that there are stars which are 6000k years old but are billions of light years away. If that is not a contradiction, then I don't know what is!? HAHAHA

No. They are billions of light years as present light goes, away in distance. Since present light was not here in the past, when the light already got here, or was on the way, it's speed matters not at all.

But you here is my favorite quote:

If we're seeing the light AND the universe is 6k years old, then it means that EVERY galaxy that we see right now is no more than 6k light years away... and this is NOT the case .

Oh, yes, it most certainly absolutely is. Count on it.

DAD GIVE IT UP, You are nothing but a lousy fabricator. You make up biblical quotes, and you try to cook up myths worse than children's fairy tales.

Hopefully such foot stomping tantrums are now unneeded by you, since I explained where you were erring.

I'm sure in your head you did, but you forgot to write it in the post LOL You showed NOTHING, and you constantly contradict yourself. I have your original quote where you are saying that there are no galaxies past 6k light years away.

So what you're saying is that in the beginning the far stars were not seen... again, in contradiction to every statement that you have made so far that the far stars were seen at all times.

Depends on which far stars you mean! ALL are far. We do not know if they all were seen, or something more along the lines of present visible stars.

Uhm, yes, you brought that term up and I can only assume you are talking about star further than 6k light years away.

And did we ever see the "fast light"? Were you there 4900 years ago to see the fast light? NO, you just made it up, a complete fabrication. The Bible says NOTHING like that.

Not at all. God was there, and He has a book. That is how I deduced that present light does not fit the bill. One thing for sure, science was not there.

Is that your quote from the Bible? You make a lot of deductions based on NOTHING LOL God was there had he has a book has nothing to do with the speed of light. If God is there and he has a book you can deduce that he has a book and he was there, that's ALL! I don't see any correlation in God's existence, the presence of his book and the speed of light.

But we're seeing the slow light... dad, you got yourself all tangled up. Were you there to see the different light? The Bible says NOTHING about the speed of light, but you keep insisting it exists. It only exists in your head, a head full of fabrications. If you keep telling a lie long enough, you start to believe it yourself!

Of course we see the present light. What else would you think we should see? I never said it now exists, I say we do not know by science that it did or did not exist in the past, or will again exist in the future.

YES, and the PRESENT light causes redshift, it also travels billions of years to get here from stars that are billions of light years away. If we never saw the "fast light", which never existed anyway, then how do we see the stars which are more than 6k light years away. Again, straw man, even the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light.

I don't care what the state was... YOU DO, and I don't know why you do. You keep asking me to tell you about something which I don't even care for. I simply care to find out where you determine what the speed of light was before "the split", because the Bible says NOTHING of it.

Science does assume that the universe was the same. The bible does say the stars, all of which are far, were for signs, for men.

The Bible says that, but it that has NOTHING to do with the speed of light. All it means is that the stars are supposed to be seen, which they are!

Yah, where is your Bible quote? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the speed of light is even mentioned. You have no proof that it was different, you just have fabrications. First you misquote the Bible, it never says anything about the "far stars" nor does it say anything about the "fast light": TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

Dealt with that in this post.

Did you forget to write it or something? Because I don't see where you dealt with it LOL

HAHAHA You have shown NO Proof, just fabrications and lies.

Look who's talking. I have proofs of the type I need for a bible case. You have none of the type you need for a phony science claim.

Dad, I don't even need to prove the science is correct, I can just use your logic and show you that you're still incorrect... it's that simple. Your logic is incorrect even by your own standards, that's how bat your situation is.

You are nothing but a petty liar. The Bible says nothing of "far stars", "fast light" or the speed of light: NOTHING! You just fabricate stuff because you have no argument.

It says stars. They are all far. Ask anyone. No way present light could get here from a star even 4 million light years away in a week, or a man's life time. Fess up.

Of course they're far, but the bible never calls them as such... in the bible they're only called STARS.

It was the same, our present light, since it came to be.

And you have NO proof that there was OTHER light, not even Biblical accounts of such thing. As I said: a complete fabrication.

let alone talking about an entire different state of the Universe! You are a Quack! You are a petty liar! A fabricator! You say things that the Bible never says! That's what I call a liar and a fabricator!

Because....you can prove that this state really was here? Or, because you just feel like saying that the bible is a crock?

Again, you forgot how to read: I'm calling YOU a quack, not the bible. LOL Here is a 3 step process for conversation:
1. Read.
2. Understand.
3. Respond.
You can't even seem to do basic reading.
The Bible never says anything about the light changing speed or it carrying some information etc. You have no proof of that, you just made it up and that's why you're a petty liar, a fabricator and a quack.

Dad, try to understand this: "Since the stars are future universe is different, this state is diverse and it works well. We can count to look at things later and see how they are now, so we don't need to look at much. How clear is that?" LOL

Hey, there you go prophesying again. Why? Because it now is that way. You really must be kidding. That is absurd.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH This is the funniest thing EVER! I hope you realize what just happened. My two sentences were purposely written to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, yet dad managed to extract some meaning out of it and tried to prove it wrong by simply repeating what he always repeats: "you can't prove same state past"... It is OBVIOUS that Dad doesn't read what he's responding to, he just posts his one line "specials" and leaves- such people are called trollers.

Well not clear at all, you don't even have sentences formed. How about you conjugate and you put a verb and a noun together to make one sentence, like this: "Mike went to the store." or "Dad needs grammar lessons."
Dad, I don't even know why I'm talking to you anymore. You can't put your thoughts into a coherent sentence, yet you try to argue semantics.

If you have problems comprehending, simply be honest.

Obviously you have problems comprehending, just look at my previous quote LOL I put two sentences together, none of which made sense whatsoever, and you managed to extract an "argument" from them. That is the funniest thing ever, again, proving that you don't even understand what you're responding to.

I see a pattern now, as a Christian you try to look at where Science "lacks" evidence and you try to plant a miracle there .

If science lacks, then why not plant whatever we feel like there? Don't blame me for seeking more than the poor little sods can offer. God has all kinds of answers, why toss them out when science as you admit, lacks, and lacks something fierce???

Yes, but where evidence lacks doesn't mean that science fails . As I told you, the Church believed that the earth was flat from about 300 AD to at least 1300, yet it Greeks in 200 BC had calculated the circumference of the Earth and were only 5% off.

Well the Earth is NOT flat, but we didn't see the earth from space until 1961. Nobody had really seen if the Earth was round, yet it was still known that it was- even better, for a LONG time Christians argued that the world is flat, and they quoted scripture to support that idea, but they were wrong. We had seen portions of the Earth while flying in airplanes, but nobody had seen the entire picture

Wow, glad we resolved that burning issue. I know folks that were alive pre 1961, and none that I am aware thought the earth was flat. You maybe should get mad at you teachers for telling you such silly things.

Indeed, but the Church claimed that the Earth was flat from abut 300 AD to about 1300, yet even in that time everybody else pretty much knew that the earth was NOT flat. That's just to show you how the Bible can be used to support even the most ignorant and false ideas- much like yours .

I will leave you with one last thing: Science is the abundance of evidence, while religion is the lack there of. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

I have a planet full of evidences in millions and millions of test tubes-people. I do not claim science can help with the state of the future or past. Science does assume it was the same. You may assume whatever you wish, just remember, it sure ain't science, or the bible. Work on that.

Yet you have no evidence from the Bible HAHAHAHA Well bring your evidence, wherever it is from... but nowhere will you find any evidence that the speed of light was different, nor that it was replaced by our "current light". That's why you're a fabricator, you make up complete lies!

 

[dad]

LOL, that's not proof that... that's just you admitting that you can't prove your point hahah.

No, that is showing you can't prove your false science point. What an expose!

First of all, the bible doesn't say "far stars", second it doesn't say ANYTHING about the speed of light.

Yes, it says stars. All stars are far. This is news?? Get a grip, man. If they were as signs for man then the light from those stars, all of them far, got here in creation week, and Adam's life time. That is elementary. Really.

You know exactly what we're talking about. You mention the "far stars" in reference to those 6k light years away and more, don't play dumb here .

No! You confuse me with someone else, apparently. I think nothing remotely similar to that.

So it's ENTIRELY possible that God designed the expanding space. There is no evidence in the Bible that God didn't!

Or did. So, we are left with science, or so called science. It bases all claims on present universe reality. You must know that.

I hope by now you understand the dilemma: we see "slow light" and the stars are billions of years away. The "fast light" was replaced by the "slow light", even so we would have to experience a "belt" of darkness where the "slow light" has to catch up to the "fast light" since the "fast light" is not visible anymore.

No idea what you are talking about. How is it that a created state universe would leave some belt, precisely??

In any case, there WAS no fast light because there is no evidence,

No, there is no evidence we can see, because science is blind to all but the present natural, and admits it! Why don't you???

not even Biblical references to a faster speed of light. If you have the quote- post it, if you don't have the quote then stop arguing that the speed of light was fast.

The stars were made for their light to shine on earth, and it is impossible for that to happen in a present state, they are too far away for present light to get here in time.

That does not explain how we're seeing a star 1 billion light years away, when the light that's coming from it is slow and the Universe has exited for only 6k years.

No, the light coming from the furthest star only likely existed as present light for 4400 years. Before that, the light that existed in the forever state got here pretty well right away, or close to it.

Yes? What part of the "present light" contains the "former light information"? LOL haha, Please show us which part of a photon carries remnants of the "former light".

I'll save you the time: IT DOESN'T! The current light which we're seeing, EVEN if it DID carry any "fast light" information, would still need to travel 1 billion years to bring us the information. The problem is that if you put a piece from a jet fighter on a flat-bed of a truck and you let the truck go down the highway at 65 mph, then the piece of the jet fighter will get here at 65 mph. So even if the jet can go Mach 2, the piece on the truck can only go 65 mph.

No. If our universe was left with present light, that came from far stars, it would still have info in that light about the star. The flatbed still has a serial number.

OK, so what are you saying? You neither defended nor denied your claim, which happens to be: the stars are 6k light years away (distance),

NO! 6000 years away, TIME. Distance matters not to a former light that could span the universe in days or hours.

and I have you quoted saying that. So you either believe that the stars are 6k light years away, or they're billions of years away? I have you quoted saying both, which one is it?

Stars billions of light years away are still only thousands of real years away, since it was not present light that was here when the light got to earth to begin with.

I'm sure in your head you did, but you forgot to write it in the post LOL You showed NOTHING, and you constantly contradict yourself. I have your original quote where you are saying that there are no galaxies past 6k light years away.

Let's try and clear that now, even for your mind. There are no stars further than 6000 YEARS away, present light years are nothing. They are simply a way to measure distance in the fishbowl of the present.

Uhm, yes, you brought that term up and I can only assume you are talking about star further than 6k light years away.

No, present light years do not relate to far past real time. They are strictly a distance measurement. In real time, even stars billions of light years away are thousands of years old.

Is that your quote from the Bible?

No, did it look like it was supposed to be one? Look for signs, like Gen 1 before the quote, when looking for quotes from the bible. This is news??

You make a lot of deductions based on NOTHING LOL God was there had he has a book has nothing to do with the speed of light. If God is there and he has a book you can deduce that he has a book and he was there, that's ALL! I don't see any correlation in God's existence, the presence of his book and the speed of light.

He explains when we were made, and how light was also shone on earth from far away. Much further that is possible with present light.

YES, and the PRESENT light causes redshift,

So what??? What else in the past also caused it? You insinuate that this state is all there ever was.

it also travels billions of years to get here from stars that are billions of light years away. If we never saw the "fast light", which never existed anyway, then how do we see the stars which are more than 6k light years away. Again, straw man, even the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light.

We never saw the former light, because history only goes back so far. We, in the last few centuries could not possibly have seen the former light.

The Bible says that, but it that has NOTHING to do with the speed of light. All it means is that the stars are supposed to be seen, which they are!

For a star to be seen, what has to happen? (I have to tell you this?) The light needs to get to earth from far away! Are you with me so far?? Now, a star a billion ly away cannot get here now in a week. So, how the hec did they see it??

Did you forget to write it or something? Because I don't see where you dealt with it LOL

Same as above.

Dad, I don't even need to prove the science is correct, I can just use your logic and show you that you're still incorrect... it's that simple. Your logic is incorrect even by your own standards, that's how bat your situation is.

You do need to use science for any science claim. My logic is very correct, you have just been slow to get it so far.

Of course they're far, but the bible never calls them as such... in the bible they're only called STARS.

Right, I call them far, because I happen to know a little bit about modern science. The glaring fact remains that starlight, generally cannot get here in days now. Fess up.

And you have NO proof that there was OTHER light, not even Biblical accounts of such thing. As I said: a complete fabrication.

In the future, the bible does say there is other light. In the past, we know there must have been by deduction! Elementary.

Again, you forgot how to read: I'm calling YOU a quack, not the bible. LOL Here is a 3 step process for conversation:
1. Read.
2. Understand.
3. Respond.

So where does the quacking come from?

You can't even seem to do basic reading.
The Bible never says anything about the light changing speed or it carrying some information etc. You have no proof of that, you just made it up and that's why you're a petty liar, a fabricator and a quack.

All signs carry information, that is the very essence of what a sign is! You must be kidding!

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH This is the funniest thing EVER! I hope you realize what just happened. My two sentences were purposely written to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, yet dad managed to extract some meaning out of it and tried to prove it wrong by simply repeating what he always repeats: "you can't prove same state past"... It is OBVIOUS that Dad doesn't read what he's responding to, he just posts his one line "specials" and leaves- such people are called trollers.

Let me see what you are saying here. You claim that you say things on purpose that make no sense! Then, you call others a troll??? Maybe you should consider that you usually make so little sense, that when you do so on purpose, it sounds normal for you! Sorry, but that is about where you stand. Now stop trolling, and focus.

Obviously you have problems comprehending, just look at my previous quote LOL I put two sentences together, none of which made sense whatsoever, and you managed to extract an "argument" from them. That is the funniest thing ever, again, proving that you don't even understand what you're responding to.

I know the stance of so called science. If you did as well, you may not have to say things, as you yourself admit make no sense! Is that all you have to do on a science forum, is make no sense on purpose??? Strange.

Yes, but where evidence lacks doesn't mean that science fails .

Stop the hand waving, man. Does it really become you?

As I told you, the Church believed that the earth was flat from about 300 AD to at least 1300, yet it Greeks in 200 BC had calculated the circumference of the Earth and were only 5% off.

Really, now. The church believed that, eh? Amusing. Prove it. If you could, I might not be that surprised, much of the church believes your myth!

Indeed, but the Church claimed that the Earth was flat from abut 300 AD to about 1300, yet even in that time everybody else pretty much knew that the earth was NOT flat. That's just to show you how the Bible can be used to support even the most ignorant and false ideas- much like yours .

Enlighten us here, as to the basis of that claim.

Yet you have no evidence from the Bible HAHAHAHA Well bring your evidence, wherever it is from... but nowhere will you find any evidence that the speed of light was different, nor that it was replaced by our "current light". That's why you're a fabricator, you make up complete lies!

You are quite the accuser. I have shown that science cannot know, and that the bible indicates a different past, http://www.geocities.com/heddidit/ and that starlight can't get here in days. You are grasping at straws. Straining at nats.

 

[Dunzo]

So hold on, is there evidence for your claims or not?
Claiming that there is evidence, but its invisible, intangible, and otherwise totally unobservable is beyond ridiculous.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

No Dad has no evidence. He is just rambling on. Very much troll like.

 

[Guest]

Yes, it says stars. All stars are far. This is news?? Get a grip, man. If they were as signs for man then the light from those stars, all of them far, got here in creation week, and Adam's life time. That is elementary. Really.

I told you, there is no evidence that a week in the "previous state of the Universe" was the same length as the CURRENT week. If you believe that the week at creation was the same length as today, then you're a fool by your own reasoning. As I said, a more reasonable thing to assume is that a week then was more like several billion years now. That gives plenthy of time for Adam to see the stars , and we can't even guarantee that he lived 800 of the CURRENT years, because it was in a different state universe... as I said, the speed of light does not have to change for that to be true. The bible describes a day as the apperance of day and night (sun raises then sun sets), how long it took in between the sunrise and the sunset is UNKNOWN!

No! You confuse me with someone else, apparently. I think nothing remotely similar to that.

Oh, well you should have clarified that when you said "far stars", because if you had just said "stars" it would have been perfectly clear to me that they're all far HAHHA

So it's ENTIRELY possible that God designed the expanding space. There is no evidence in the Bible that God didn't!

Or did. So, we are left with science, or so called science. It bases all claims on present universe reality. You must know that.

There IS evidence that he DID, because we're seeing it happen NOW . Present Universe Reality has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe, but the speed of light does! As I said, you have no proof that the speed of light was different, nor is there any proof that the 6 days of creation were in fact the same lenght as today's days.

I hope by now you understand the dilemma: we see "slow light" and the stars are billions of years away. The "fast light" was replaced by the "slow light", even so we would have to experience a "belt" of darkness where the "slow light" has to catch up to the "fast light" since the "fast light" is not visible anymore.

No idea what you are talking about. How is it that a created state universe would leave some belt, precisely??

For the lack of a better term I call it a "belt", but a better description would be the constant apperance of NEW stars in the sky. You may ask why would we see new stars? Because the "fast light" got here before we could see it, then it was replaced by the "slow light", but the slow light couldn't reach us in 6k years because the stars it originated from are billions of light years away.

In any case, there WAS no fast light because there is no evidence,

No, there is no evidence we can see, because science is blind to all but the present natural, and admits it! Why don't you???

Uhm... there is no evidence because there is no evidence! If science is blind to all but the present natural, then who observed the "fast" light? I hope you understand how foolish you sound: "we can't see the evidence, but it's ok because science can't see it either" HAHAHA

not even Biblical references to a faster speed of light. If you have the quote- post it, if you don't have the quote then stop arguing that the speed of light was fast.

The stars were made for their light to shine on earth, and it is impossible for that to happen in a present state, they are too far away for present light to get here in time.

AND THEY DO shine on the Earth... uhm, that's exacly my point, they're too far away for present light to get here in 6k years, thus the Universe is much older. Your assumption that God created the Universe in 6 literal/present days is wrong even by your own standards, because you calim that the state of the Universe was different at cration, thus we can't guarantee that a day then is the same as a day now.

That does not explain how we're seeing a star 1 billion light years away, when the light that's coming from it is slow and the Universe has exited for only 6k years.

No, the light coming from the furthest star only likely existed as present light for 4400 years. Before that, the light that existed in the forever state got here pretty well right away, or close to it.

Yes, before that there might have been a light which was traveling at a different speed, but NOBODY saw that light, nor is there any evidence that such light existed. The Bible doesn't say anything about it, History says nothing about it, science says nothing about it, NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT IT but YOU!

Yes? What part of the "present light" contains the "former light information"? LOL haha, Please show us which part of a photon carries remnants of the "former light".

I'll save you the time: IT DOESN'T! The current light which we're seeing, EVEN if it DID carry any "fast light" information, would still need to travel 1 billion years to bring us the information. The problem is that if you put a piece from a jet fighter on a flat-bed of a truck and you let the truck go down the highway at 65 mph, then the piece of the jet fighter will get here at 65 mph. So even if the jet can go Mach 2, the piece on the truck can only go 65 mph.

No. If our universe was left with present light, that came from far stars, it would still have info in that light about the star. The flatbed still has a serial number.

Yes, but the truck still travels at 65 mph along with its serial number LOL The "info" about the star is that the star is SHINING, that's the only info there. If you have any proof that there is "info" in our current light then please tell me how I can read that info, how can I obtain it, and how can I store it! Anyway, info about the star is NOT info about the "fast light" and my point is that the current light carries no info about the "fast light", even if it DID it would take billions of years to get here from a star billions of light years away.

OK, so what are you saying? You neither defended nor denied your claim, which happens to be: the stars are 6k light years away (distance),

NO! 6000 years away, TIME. Distance matters not to a former light that could span the universe in days or hours.

LOL, then you're saying that they're 6000 years OLD, not AWAY! Away implies distance, not TIME! Yes you're still talking about the "former light" for which you have provided no evidence of existance AT ALL! I suggest you stop talking about it, because it's a completely false statement.

and I have you quoted saying that. So you either believe that the stars are 6k light years away, or they're billions of years away? I have you quoted saying both, which one is it?

Stars billions of light years away are still only thousands of real years away, since it was not present light that was here when the light got to earth to begin with.

Uhm, this is the CROWN JEWEL of Dad's logic... I'll help you tho, "light years" describes the DISTANCE it takes for light to travel in 1 year, on the other hand years are a unit for measurement of time. So when you say that a star is 2 billion light years away (DISTANCE), then any light that's coming from it has traveled for 2 billion years (TIME). If the star is 6k years old (TIME), then the light from it would only travel 6k light years (DISTSANCE).

I'm sure in your head you did, but you forgot to write it in the post LOL You showed NOTHING, and you constantly contradict yourself. I have your original quote where you are saying that there are no galaxies past 6k light years away.

Let's try and clear that now, even for your mind. There are no stars further than 6000 YEARS away, present light years are nothing. They are simply a way to measure distance in the fishbowl of the present.

I hope you're not talking about disntace, but time. If youre talking about time, then you should revise your statement to say "6k years OLD" not away! Away implies distance.
If you're talking about distnace, then you're WRONG, because we would not exist if all of the stars were within 6k lgiht years from us. They would burn up everything and gravity would cruch them together.

Uhm, yes, you brought that term up and I can only assume you are talking about star further than 6k light years away.

No, present light years do not relate to far past real time. They are strictly a distance measurement. In real time, even stars billions of light years away are thousands of years old.

Now you're starting to get your terms correct, but your logic is still not there LOL. So now that we have coined the difference between light years (the distance measurement) and years (time measurement), then it's time to coin our logic .
Oh, by the way what is "far past real time"? Back to your logic:
Stars that are billions of light years away are only thousands of years old. I can accept that statement, but the only problem is that if that's true, then we would not see them because the light wouldn't be here yet!

Is that your quote from the Bible?

No, did it look like it was supposed to be one? Look for signs, like Gen 1 before the quote, when looking for quotes from the bible. This is news??

Uhm, I don't know what things are supposed to be with you anymore LOL, frankly I don't think you know either. I suppose that should be news to you! Gen 1 says that the stars are meant to be seen and they are seen, that's that for me... you on the other hand conclude that there was a different light which traveled faster. I don't think any person has ever come to that conclusion before, so CONGRATULATIONS: you are the one and only !

You make a lot of deductions based on NOTHING LOL God was there had he has a book has nothing to do with the speed of light. If God is there and he has a book you can deduce that he has a book and he was there, that's ALL! I don't see any correlation in God's existence, the presence of his book and the speed of light.

He explains when we were made, and how light was also shone on earth from far away. Much further that is possible with present light.

OK, dad yet another claim: "light was also shone on earth from far awaw. Much further than is possible with prsent light." I will not even go into that, because I told you that there was no different speed of ligth at any point in time after the universe came to be. There is NO evidence of such thing ever happening, existing or even remotley bieng possible.

YES, and the PRESENT light causes redshift,

So what??? What else in the past also caused it? You insinuate that this state is all there ever was.

Nothing else in the past could have caused redshift. I have heard your ideas, they're false because they assume that the speed of light was different and you have nothing to support that claim.

it also travels billions of years to get here from stars that are billions of light years away. If we never saw the "fast light", which never existed anyway, then how do we see the stars which are more than 6k light years away. Again, straw man, even the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light.

We never saw the former light, because history only goes back so far. We, in the last few centuries could not possibly have seen the former light.

The Bible says that, but it that has NOTHING to do with the speed of light. All it means is that the stars are supposed to be seen, which they are!

For a star to be seen, what has to happen? (I have to tell you this?) The light needs to get to earth from far away! Are you with me so far?? Now, a star a billion ly away cannot get here now in a week. So, how the hec did they see it??

DAD, FINALLY! YOU have realized the dilemma which I had throughout our entire conversation here LOL. I wonder they same thing, but your explenation is illogical and false. The speed of light was NEVER different, there are no accoutns, no proof, not even Biblical references to any such thing.

You do need to use science for any science claim. My logic is very correct, you have just been slow to get it so far.

You don't seem to accept science, so the only way to convince you that I'm right is to use your logic and your evidence . Even your logic and evidence (actually you have no evidence) prove that you're wrong.

Of course they're far, but the bible never calls them as such... in the bible they're only called STARS.

Right, I call them far, because I happen to know a little bit about modern science. The glaring fact remains that starlight, generally cannot get here in days now. Fess up.

OH, now you know a little bit a bout modern science? Since when do you subscribe to ideas from the "so called science" LOL. OH and now it's a "glaring fact" that light cannot get here in days well I have to also add that it's a glairing fact that it NEVER got here in days! You have no proof that it did get here in days, you are completely wrong!

And you have NO proof that there was OTHER light, not even Biblical accounts of such thing. As I said: a complete fabrication.

In the future, the bible does say there is other light. In the past, we know there must have been by deduction! Elementary.

Your deduction is WRONG even by your own logic. You claim that we can't look in the past and tell what's in the future, therefore we can't look in the future to tell what's in the past . But even looking at this simply word for word, the only thing that we can deduce is that the light will be different in the future (nothing can be said about the past based on that quote). You can't tell what the weather was yesterday by looking at tomorrow's forecast LOL

You can't even seem to do basic reading.
The Bible never says anything about the light changing speed or it carrying some information etc. You have no proof of that, you just made it up and that's why you're a petty liar, a fabricator and a quack.

All signs carry information, that is the very essence of what a sign is! You must be kidding!

I'm not kidding, but you're definitely not thinking If there is "information" in light, the only thing it says is that the star from which it came form is emitting light. If there is any other informaiton in light, then please help us decode it and read it

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH This is the funniest thing EVER! I hope you realize what just happened. My two sentences were purposely written to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, yet dad managed to extract some meaning out of it and tried to prove it wrong by simply repeating what he always repeats: "you can't prove same state past"... It is OBVIOUS that Dad doesn't read what he's responding to, he just posts his one line "specials" and leaves- such people are called trollers.

Let me see what you are saying here. You claim that you say things on purpose that make no sense! Then, you call others a troll??? Maybe you should consider that you usually make so little sense, that when you do so on purpose, it sounds normal for you! Sorry, but that is about where you stand. Now stop trolling, and focus.

Dad, if you notice my entire statement was in "quotes", I purposly made it to mimic your illogical sentances. I had the full intent of making this statement in order to immitate you . And if I usually sound like I make no sense is because I'm trying to get you to get your story straight. Your story makes no sense so any conversation around it would make no sense LOL

Obviously you have problems comprehending, just look at my previous quote LOL I put two sentences together, none of which made sense whatsoever, and you managed to extract an "argument" from them. That is the funniest thing ever, again, proving that you don't even understand what you're responding to.

I know the stance of so called science. If you did as well, you may not have to say things, as you yourself admit make no sense! Is that all you have to do on a science forum, is make no sense on purpose??? Strange.

Oh, I make sense and purpose, but when I try to mimic you, you seem to get lost LOL, I hope you see what I have to deal with on a regular basis when I'm talking to you. I purposly put the statement in quotes and purposly made it sound like you. Don't get mad at me, be mad at yourself LOL.

Yes, but where evidence lacks doesn't mean that science fails .

Stop the hand waving, man. Does it really become you?

Uhm... I tell you what, you get your story straight, then we start talking about science .

Really, now. The church believed that, eh? Amusing. Prove it. If you could, I might not be that surprised, much of the church believes your myth!

As I told you, the Church believed that the earth was flat from about 300 AD to at least 1300, yet it Greeks in 200 BC had calculated the circumference of the Earth and were only 5% off.

[quote:8e478]Indeed, but the Church claimed that the Earth was flat from abut 300 AD to about 1300, yet even in that time everybody else pretty much knew that the earth was NOT flat. That's just to show you how the Bible can be used to support even the most ignorant and false ideas- much like yours .

Enlighten us here, as to the basis of that claim. [/quote:8e478]
The Warfare Of Science With Theology (1896) by Andrew Dickson White, Augustine, Ambrose and Basil... they all believed in scripture, that the Earth was set on pillars, that there were four corners on the earth, etc.

Yet you have no evidence from the Bible HAHAHAHA Well bring your evidence, wherever it is from... but nowhere will you find any evidence that the speed of light was different, nor that it was replaced by our "current light". That's why you're a fabricator, you make up complete lies!

You are quite the accuser. I have shown that science cannot know, and that the bible indicates a different past, http://www.geocities.com/heddidit/ and that starlight can't get here in days. You are grasping at straws. Straining at nats.

NO, YOU are the accuser LOL. You accuse science that it can't prove that the space is expanding because the speed of light was different, that caused redshift, etc. You are wrong untill you prove that the speed of light was different. I'm still waiting to see what your proof is that the speed of light was different ;) By the way I loved the website there nice scrolling text, neverending story, no point, no evidence of a different speed of light It was great! A great waste of time!

 

[dad]

So hold on, is there evidence for your claims or not?
Claiming that there is evidence, but its invisible, intangible, and otherwise totally unobservable is beyond ridiculous.

Depends on what claims you mean. There is evidences of Christian claims, witnesses, and changed lives, millions of them. We observe it all the time. Science can't observe it's impotent way out of a PO bag, when it comes to the spiritual!

 

[dad]

I told you, there is no evidence that a week in the "previous state of the Universe" was the same length as the CURRENT week.

Plants need sunlight. Do they not? How long can they live without it?

If you believe that the week at creation was the same length as today, then you're a fool by your own reasoning.

No, I do not ever question reality, or that God knows what a day is.

As I said, a more reasonable thing to assume is that a week then was more like several billion years now.

Impossible. Plants need the sun.

That gives plenthy of time for Adam to see the stars , and we can't even guarantee that he lived 800 of the CURRENT years, because it was in a different state universe...

A different state universe does not change a year. Otherwise, you may as well claim that Adam lived 930 million years, or whatever, rather than 930 years.

as I said, the speed of light does not have to change for that to be true.

Light changed, not the speed of present state light.

The bible describes a day as the apperance of day and night (sun raises then sun sets), how long it took in between the sunrise and the sunset is UNKNOWN!

False, there were days before the sun was made.

Oh, well you should have clarified that when you said "far stars", because if you had just said "stars" it would have been perfectly clear to me that they're all far HAHHA

Right, but I say far stars, to denote they could not get here in a week now.

There IS evidence that he DID, because we're seeing it happen NOW . Present Universe Reality has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe, but the speed of light does! As I said, you have no proof that the speed of light was different, nor is there any proof that the 6 days of creation were in fact the same lenght as today's days.

So your case here rests on the present light and it's speed.

For the lack of a better term I call it a "belt", but a better description would be the constant apperance of NEW stars in the sky. You may ask why would we see new stars? Because the "fast light" got here before we could see it, then it was replaced by the "slow light", but the slow light couldn't reach us in 6k years because the stars it originated from are billions of light years away.

Interesting guesswork.

Uhm... there is no evidence because there is no evidence! If science is blind to all but the present natural, then who observed the "fast" light?

I think we all know who did not! Neither did science observe same state light in our far past, they are new kids on the block.

I hope you understand how foolish you sound: "we can't see the evidence, but it's ok because science can't see it either" HAHAHA

You may stick to the blindness of science as you wish. Just don't pretend it sees the future and far past.

AND THEY DO shine on the Earth... uhm, that's exacly my point, they're too far away for present light to get here in 6k years, thus the Universe is much older.

ONLY IF, what, class? Right, it was the same light, in the same universe. That you don't know.

Your assumption that God created the Universe in 6 literal/present days is wrong even by your own standards, because you calim that the state of the Universe was different at cration, thus we can't guarantee that a day then is the same as a day now.

God is the same! He said it was a day. If you think God is wrong, prove it. A day will still be a day in the new universe!

Yes, before that there might have been a light which was traveling at a different speed, but NOBODY saw that light, nor is there any evidence that such light existed. The Bible doesn't say anything about it, History says nothing about it, science says nothing about it, NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT IT but YOU!

The bible lays out a timeframe for star creation, and light from them on earth. That can not jive with present temporary universe light. Period. Face it.

Yes, but the truck still travels at 65 mph along with its serial number LOL The "info" about the star is that the star is SHINING, that's the only info there.

No. There is info in the spectrum of light from the star.

If you have any proof that there is "info" in our current light then please tell me how I can read that info, how can I obtain it, and how can I store it!

"Spectroscopy can detect a much wider region of the EM spectrum than the visible range of 400 nm to 700 nm. A common laboratory spectroscope can detect wavelengths from 2 nm to 2500 nm. Detailed information about the physical properties of objects, gases, or even stars can be obtained from this type of device. It is widely used in astrophysics. For example, many hydrogen atoms emit radio waves which have a wavelength of 21.12 cm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Anyway, info about the star is NOT info about the "fast light" and my point is that the current light carries no info about the "fast light", even if it DID it would take billions of years to get here from a star billions of light years away.

Well, it is all the info our light could handle. Give it a little pat on the back.

LOL, then you're saying that they're 6000 years OLD, not AWAY!

Bingo. Away doesn't matter, if all the universe is different.

Away implies distance, not TIME! Yes you're still talking about the "former light" for which you have provided no evidence of existance AT ALL! I suggest you stop talking about it, because it's a completely false statement.

I suggest you stop talking about same state light, it's a completely false statement, and there is no evidence for it. I have God's word, at least. You have, precisely, nothing at all.

Uhm, this is the CROWN JEWEL of Dad's logic... I'll help you tho, "light years" describes the DISTANCE it takes for light to travel in 1 year, on the other hand years are a unit for measurement of time. So when you say that a star is 2 billion light years away (DISTANCE), then any light that's coming from it has traveled for 2 billion years (TIME).

No. Not unless it was our light in this state universe doing that traveling, and that you don't know in any way, shape, or form.

If the star is 6k years old (TIME), then the light from it would only travel 6k light years (DISTSANCE).

In this state only, if the universe was different, that does not apply at all.

I hope you're not talking about disntace, but time. If youre talking about time, then you should revise your statement to say "6k years OLD" not away! Away implies distance.

Well, maybe. But no star is more than 6000 years away measured in real time. Measuring it in temporary universe light speed is unimportant.

If you're talking about distnace, then you're WRONG, because we would not exist if all of the stars were within 6k lgiht years from us. They would burn up everything and gravity would cruch them together.

Distance, once again, matters not at all. Light in the past was not this light, and got around real real real fast.

Now you're starting to get your terms correct, but your logic is still not there LOL. So now that we have coined the difference between light years (the distance measurement) and years (time measurement), then it's time to coin our logic .
Oh, by the way what is "far past real time"?

That is when a day was still a day, and light of that day got here from millions or billions of present light years units distance away, in jig time.

Back to your logic:
Stars that are billions of light years away are only thousands of years old. I can accept that statement, but the only problem is that if that's true, then we would not see them because the light wouldn't be here yet!

No. The light was coming in at the universe change, one would suppose, otherwise we could see no stars! The universe change left us with our light as it now is, still coming in, in it's slow, weak little way.

Uhm, I don't know what things are supposed to be with you anymore LOL, frankly I don't think you know either. I suppose that should be news to you! Gen 1 says that the stars are meant to be seen and they are seen, that's that for me... you on the other hand conclude that there was a different light which traveled faster.

Right, the light that existed in the universe of that day, not our day.

I don't think any person has ever come to that conclusion before, so CONGRATULATIONS: you are the one and only !

Thanks.

OK, dad yet another claim: "light was also shone on earth from far awaw. Much further than is possible with prsent light." I will not even go into that, because I told you that there was no different speed of ligth at any point in time after the universe came to be.

You have no proof of that, and no clue. You simply assume that the universe came to be when OUR universe came to be. In other words, you have assumed this is the created state, rather than a temporary state universe.

There is NO evidence of such thing ever happening, existing or even remotley bieng possible.

There is the bible, that records things before the change. There is not science, for your myth, or mine.

Nothing else in the past could have caused redshift.

If there was a spiritual also universe, you can't say that. You are talking through your hat there.

I have heard your ideas, they're false because they assume that the speed of light was different and you have nothing to support that claim.

They assume light was different, and the universe, NOT the speed of our light.

DAD, FINALLY! YOU have realized the dilemma which I had throughout our entire conversation here LOL. I wonder they same thing, but your explenation is illogical and false. The speed of light was NEVER different, there are no accoutns, no proof, not even Biblical references to any such thing.

There are no accounts of it being the same, so your point is moot. The bible says we saw stars, soon after they were created. It is your myth that is pure fable.

You don't seem to accept science, so the only way to convince you that I'm right is to use your logic and your evidence . Even your logic and evidence (actually you have no evidence) prove that you're wrong.

I accept ALL science, but realize that it applies only in the PO universe. (Physical Only)

OH, now you know a little bit a bout modern science? Since when do you subscribe to ideas from the "so called science" LOL. OH and now it's a "glaring fact" that light cannot get here in days

Yes, I accept real science, that covers the here and now! Light, we know travels at a certain speed now. This is news???

well I have to also add that it's a glairing fact that it NEVER got here in days! You have no proof that it did get here in days, you are completely wrong!

You bandy about so called facts without evidence. How would you know what went on in the universe of creation??

Your deduction is WRONG even by your own logic. You claim that we can't look in the past and tell what's in the future, therefore we can't look in the future to tell what's in the past .

Yes we can, because the bible describes both, and both are similar, and the present is absolutely different!

But even looking at this simply word for word, the only thing that we can deduce is that the light will be different in the future (nothing can be said about the past based on that quote). You can't tell what the weather was yesterday by looking at tomorrow's forecast LOL

You can tell the tree of life was in New Jerusalem and in Eden, however. You can tell we were able to live forever at creation, and will live forever in the new universe. You can tell Adam had stars to look at. You can tell the growth rate of plants is different in the future and past. Etc. The present is the odd man out, and it's odd little science.

I'm not kidding, but you're definitely not thinking If there is "information" in light, the only thing it says is that the star from which it came form is emitting light. If there is any other informaiton in light, then please help us decode it and read it

Already covered that in this post, with link.

Dad, if you notice my entire statement was in "quotes", I purposly made it to mimic your illogical sentances.

Ah, so we are now supposed to detect when you are trying to be silly, from the normal silly things you claim. I see.

Oh, I make sense and purpose, but when I try to mimic you, you seem to get lost LOL, I hope you see what I have to deal with on a regular basis when I'm talking to you. I purposly put the statement in quotes and purposly made it sound like you. Don't get mad at me, be mad at yourself LOL.

Well, I suppose in lei of evidence, you need to resort to something you think is clever.

Uhm... I tell you what, you get your story straight, then we start talking about science .

I had it straight from the getgo, it is simply a matter of bending your false notions enough to get a grip on what is being said.

The Warfare Of Science With Theology (1896) by Andrew Dickson White, Augustine, Ambrose and Basil... they all believed in scripture, that the Earth was set on pillars, that there were four corners on the earth, etc.

Augustine was an over rated PO thinker.. The other spices I never heard of.

NO, YOU are the accuser LOL. You accuse science that it can't prove that the space is expanding because the speed of light was different, that caused redshift, etc.

That is an evidenced observation, that you yourself enforce.

You are wrong untill you prove that the speed of light was different.

That would be never, I don't claim that. What you mean is that the universe and light were different, and that is out of the shallow depth of physical only, present natural science.

I'm still waiting to see what your proof is that the speed of light was different ;) By the way I loved the website there nice scrolling text, neverending story, no point, no evidence of a different speed of light It was great! A great waste of time!

It is something like 8 pages. If you find that never ending, maybe stick to TV. Cartoons might be something short and sweet for you. The link was meant to give somewhat of a bible case, for something science can't cover.

 

[Dunzo]

So hold on, is there evidence for your claims or not?
Claiming that there is evidence, but its invisible, intangible, and otherwise totally unobservable is beyond ridiculous.

Depends on what claims you mean. There is evidences of Christian claims, witnesses, and changed lives, millions of them. We observe it all the time. Science can't observe it's impotent way out of a PO bag, when it comes to the spiritual!

Yes, I'm sure many people have been changed by christianity (for better or for worse :wink, but what evidence do you have of a varied speed of light?
Look, with todays technology,if science cannot observe something, then it's safe to say that it simply isn't there. Everything we have today is a result of science. The scientific method has resulted in a huge range of discoveries, from the speed of light itself to DNA to the flying speed of an unladen swallow. If a spiritual side of the universe existed, science would have found it by now. There is simply no evidence for it. I'm afraid if you want to convince the scientific world that the speed of light has changed due to a "split in the universe" of physical and spiritual, then you'll have to provide evidence for a spiritual universe in the first place. So far you have completely and utterly failed. Evidence please.