[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[Guest]

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?

Dad, light was the first thing that God created right after he created the heavens and the Earth (day one). So trees would have had light because they were created on the third "day". If the speed of light was the same as today the trees would not have been harmed at all, don't worry about them . And we know it was the same because NO EVIDENCE EXISTS to suggest otherwise, not even Biblical evidence; as a matter of fact you completely made up the thing about "fast light". No such thing existed anywhere!

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.

You don't question reality but you question that the speed of light was the same... weird I think that the speed of light IS reality and it is the same.

Here is what it boils down to: you can't prove that there was a different speed of light, or if the speed of light was different, or anything remotely similar. Even if you use the Bible as your guide you STILL can't prove that the speed of light was different. I told you 100 times that there was no different speed of light at any point and time after the Universe came to be. The Universe did not change its so called "state" ever since it was created either via the Big Bang or the 6 "days" of creation by God. PERIOD! So get that through your head and stop trying to argue a point which you have no proof of WHATSOEVER! The only thing we're left with is scientific observations, because there are no accounts in the Bible about the speed of light, and those observations tell us that the universe is expanding! PERIOD.

So what we can safely conclude is that he speed of light DID NOT change, since there is no Biblical or scientific reasoning to support that idea, therefore space is expanding. Space is expanding because we observe redshift and nothing else could cause redshift (even in the past state universe), the only thing that caused it now, and then, is the stars moving away.

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

Dad, let me translate what this all means, because as always you read one thing and your conclusion is completely DIFFERENT. Electromagnetic spectrum deals with the wavelength of light, light in itself carries no "information", but we can get information about the "objects, gases, or even stars" because different material objects, gases and stars emit light of a certain spectrum. Again, this shows your complete lack of understanding of science. Electromagnetic spectrum has nothing to do with "fast light" or any information related to it, I'm sorry to break the news for you .

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.

OH YES YOU DO CLAIM THAT! I don't claim that the universe and light were different, YOU CLAIM THAT! Hahahah, I NEVER claimed any such thing! My whole point is that they were not different because there is no evidence that they were, even by Biblical accounts. You are more than contradicting yourself, you are a blatant fool!

Look up in our previous posts, even this one, you keep claiming that:
1. There was a different speed of light.
2. There was a different light with a different speed.
3. The speed of light changed.
All 3 are different from each other, but you have managed to make an argument about all 3 in our previous posts. Would you like me to quote you on all 3? It will be a pointless exercise and a waste of my time, but it will help you refresh your really short memory!

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Dad, light was the first thing that God created right after he created the heavens and the Earth (day one).

Actually that can't be true. Once he creates anything, he creates light. Matter is energy energy. Once the universe is here, there is something here, therefore light. That verse has to be metaphorical, no way around that. Unless you say that by light it is meant light that is visible to the human eye. But why would he distinguish that, because there are not any humans for the reference yet, and he is God therefore can see all light.

 

[DD_8630]

Dad, light was the first thing that God created right after he created the heavens and the Earth (day one).

Actually that can't be true. Once he creates anything, he creates light.

How so? Not everything is made of light. He could, for instance, have simply created the spacetime continuum, and saved the whole 'let there be light' bit for afters.

Matter is energy energy.

As is light.

Once the universe is here, there is something here, therefore light.

Non sequitur.

That verse has to be metaphorical, no way around that. Unless you say that by light it is meant light that is visible to the human eye. But why would he distinguish that, because there are not any humans for the reference yet, and he is God therefore can see all light.

Light is simply an EM wave. You don't have to have pulses of EM radiation flitting about.

 

[Guest]

Actually that can't be true. Once he creates anything, he creates light. Matter is energy energy. Once the universe is here, there is something here, therefore light.

The point of quoting the Bible is to show dad that even by his own standards he has no point. Dad tries to pull quotes from the Bible and use them as evidence to disprove science, but the only problem is that the quotes he pulls say NOTHING about the topic at hand.

This is a LOOONG STORY, but here is Dad's perception of the world:
1. The Universe/Earth is about 6k years old.
2. There was a "split" in the universe about 4400 years ago.
3. Before "the split" the Universe was in a different state where light traveled faster (almost instantaneous), and that's how we now see stars that are beyond 6000 light years away.
4. Science can't prove that this wasn't so because science can't guarantee that the state of the Universe wasn't different.

Dad displays no sense of logic. The Bible says nothing about the speed of light being different before or after the split, he made up the idea about "fast" light because he couldn't explain how we see the light coming from stars which are billions of years away when the Earth is supposed to be 6k-years-old. He cannot find any evidence, neither scientific nor Biblical, to support his idea of a different speed of light. Besides his blatant misconception about the speed of light, Dad has provided us with a new definition for contradicting and a fabricator, his picture right next to both of these words in the dictionary.

 

[dad]

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?

A different light, in a different universe, not a different speed of present light. Big difference.

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.

Absolute nonsense. Science is almost to the point of being able to destroy all we have, it never created the universe, or man, or beast. Science has never so much as seen one lousy ghost! Not one angel, or spirit! Talk about blind, it hardly gets any worse than that. They deal in the natural universe, that means present universe only! They are creatures of a rinky dink fishbowl, I wouldn't brag about, by any means. Get a grip, man. That is ridiculous.

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.

Whoopee doo! The silly present based nerd knowledge finally detected present light speed!! It finally is starting to see how present life processes work!!! And, gasp, even knows how fast a bird flies!! So?? It is so Mickey Mouse, I can hardly do the subject justice. Compared to the boundless eternal true knowledge of God, present, temporary universe knowledge of man is a twirp.

If a spiritual side of the universe existed, science would have found it by now.

They deal, by the very nature of science ONLY in the physical! Claiming they are ghostbusters who simply found out there are no ghosts is such absolute ignorance, that it is funny.

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.

They can't deal with that, it is out of their little twirpy fishbowl. And, I want to convince no one that the speed of our light changed anyhow.

 

[Dunzo]

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?

A different light, in a different universe, not a different speed of present light. Big difference.

Oh sorry, I was confused by your incessant contradictions.

[quote:d88f3]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.

Absolute nonsense. Science is almost to the point of being able to destroy all we have, it never created the universe, or man, or beast. Science has never so much as seen one lousy ghost![/quote:d88f3]
Oh my god. Now you profess belief in ghosts? You also appear to have totally missed my point. If science has never observed the supernatural world... THEN IT ISNT THERE. I cannot make this more clear. Get this into your skull. IF IT CANNOT BE OBSERVED THEN IT ISNT THERE.

Not one angel, or spirit! Talk about blind, it hardly gets any worse than that. They deal in the natural universe, that means present universe only! They are creatures of a rinky dink fishbowl, I wouldn't brag about, by any means. Get a grip, man. That is ridiculous.

You are absolutely mad. No, seriously. I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, but.... that's insanity. You need to get a grip on reality.

[quote:d88f3] 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.

Whoopee doo! The silly present based nerd knowledge finally detected present light speed!! It finally is starting to see how present life processes work!!! And, gasp, even knows how fast a bird flies!! So?? It is so Mickey Mouse, I can hardly do the subject justice. Compared to the boundless eternal true knowledge of God, present, temporary universe knowledge of man is a twirp.[/quote:d88f3]
You clearly haven't seen any Monty Python. That was my attempt at injecting just a little bit of humour into the situation.
Obviously you have no idea of how ignorant you sound. Until this god character is willing to share some of his boundless knowledge, the works of science are the best we've got.

[quote:d88f3] If a spiritual side of the universe existed, science would have found it by now.

They deal, by the very nature of science ONLY in the physical! Claiming they are ghostbusters who simply found out there are no ghosts is such absolute ignorance, that it is funny.[/quote:d88f3]
Err, that's not the nature of science at all. The purpose of science (I hate to use the word 'science' in this way, but I don't know how else to put it) is not to restrict knowledge of the world around us by ignoring elements of it, but to gain as much knowledge as possible. Evidence of a supernatural world simply does not exist, and trust me, it's been looked for.

 

[dad]

Oh sorry, I was confused by your incessant contradictions.

Be honest. Don't try to blame your confusion on invented contradictions.

Oh my god. Now you profess belief in ghosts?

Of course, Poor POers would call them spirits. Have you any reason whatsoever to oppose what MOST men on the planet have ALWAYS known to be true??

You also appear to have totally missed my point. If science has never observed the supernatural world... THEN IT ISNT THERE.

Not at all, it is such a weak and silly, and baseless so called point, that I assumed you would not dare to express it! Show us, then, how science observes all. Show us how it is not, as I said, limited only to the natural, and physical! You are so utterly busted, it is amazing.

I cannot make this more clear. Get this into your skull. IF IT CANNOT BE OBSERVED THEN IT ISNT THERE.

Right, so if a blimd person can't see a train, it does not exist? Got it.

You are absolutely mad. No, seriously. I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, but.... that's insanity. You need to get a grip on reality.

You try to refrain, but have nothing else to offer. OK. Sad.

You clearly haven't seen any Monty Python. That was my attempt at injecting just a little bit of humour into the situation.

I avoid that Antichrist sewage with perfect intent. But if you have something actually funny, that is OK. Feel free to say it.

Obviously you have no idea of how ignorant you sound. Until this god character is willing to share some of his boundless knowledge, the works of science are the best we've got.

Then they are firmly in the fishbowl of the present. Have a nice little swim.

Err, that's not the nature of science at all. The purpose of science (I hate to use the word 'science' in this way, but I don't know how else to put it) is not to restrict knowledge of the world around us by ignoring elements of it, but to gain as much knowledge as possible. Evidence of a supernatural world simply does not exist, and trust me, it's been looked for.

One can look for a fish with a telescope pointed at the sky if one wished. But physical only based science has no clue about anything spiritual, and could not care less. It is only equipped to deal in the natural. This is news??? Are you aware that this is somewhat of a science forum? Yet you come out with that sort of tripe????

 

[Insulin]

Right, so if a blimd person can't see a train, it does not exist? Got it.

Fortunately for the poor blind person, there are a significant number of people around him who can observe the train.
This may be applied as a metaphor, that is to say the blind person is a lay person, and his associates are astrophysicists, but I digress
If I take the liberty to assume the blind person still has his hearing and touch faculties intact, he may observe the train - and therein lies the answer to this rather weak straw man. Observe is not equal to see.
But one must think of the implications of this point - if we can not observe something, do you argue it is therefore true by default, and warrants faith?

If the null Hypothesis was such a weak argument, and the notion that the universe may have been subject to different laws of phsyics c. 6,000 ago.. well one would assume this revolutionary idea would be prevalent in every rebuttal to a scientific argument ever made on the age of the universe.

The last time I ever saw scritpure quoted in a scientific journal was... never? Perhaps they were written before the light changed, and we can no longer read them.

 

[Dunzo]

[quote:e8988]Oh my god. Now you profess belief in ghosts?

Of course, Poor POers would call them spirits. Have you any reason whatsoever to oppose what MOST men on the planet have ALWAYS known to be true??[/quote:e8988]
Err... complete lack of evidence, perhaps?

[quote:e8988]
You also appear to have totally missed my point. If science has never observed the supernatural world... THEN IT ISNT THERE.

Not at all, it is such a weak and silly, and baseless so called point, that I assumed you would not dare to express it! Show us, then, how science observes all. Show us how it is not, as I said, limited only to the natural, and physical! You are so utterly busted, it is amazing.[/quote:e8988]
I think not. Science is not omniscient, of course, but technological advancement has gotten to the point that if such a spiritual world existed, it would have been scientifically observed.

[quote:e8988] I cannot make this more clear. Get this into your skull. IF IT CANNOT BE OBSERVED THEN IT ISNT THERE.

Right, so if a blimd person can't see a train, it does not exist? Got it. [/quote:e8988]
Science is most certainly not blind. It has other senses with which to "see".

[quote:e8988]
You are absolutely mad. No, seriously. I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, but.... that's insanity. You need to get a grip on reality.

You try to refrain, but have nothing else to offer. OK. Sad.[/quote:e8988]
How else am I to break it to you that you're utterly insane?

[quote:e8988]You clearly haven't seen any Monty Python. That was my attempt at injecting just a little bit of humour into the situation.

I avoid that Antichrist sewage with perfect intent. But if you have something actually funny, that is OK. Feel free to say it.[/quote:e8988]
Pure ignorance. How you could call Monty Python "antichrist sewage" is quite beyond me. You've either never heard of it or are just stupid. But I digress!

[quote:e8988]Obviously you have no idea of how ignorant you sound. Until this god character is willing to share some of his boundless knowledge, the works of science are the best we've got.

Then they are firmly in the fishbowl of the present. Have a nice little swim. [/quote:e8988]
He's not doing a very good job of helping us out, is he? Despite his omnipotence, he has yet to make an appearance in the "material world" and finally prove his existence. Get a move on! He can't even share with us the secrets of the universe, and we have to figure it out for ourselves. But it's no worry, we're doing a pretty good job of it.

[quote:e8988]Err, that's not the nature of science at all. The purpose of science (I hate to use the word 'science' in this way, but I don't know how else to put it) is not to restrict knowledge of the world around us by ignoring elements of it, but to gain as much knowledge as possible. Evidence of a supernatural world simply does not exist, and trust me, it's been looked for.

One can look for a fish with a telescope pointed at the sky if one wished. But physical only based science has no clue about anything spiritual, and could not care less. It is only equipped to deal in the natural. This is news??? Are you aware that this is somewhat of a science forum? Yet you come out with that sort of tripe????[/quote:e8988]
Are you aware of it? Scientific theories are based on evidence, of which you have presented none of credibility. If you have any, get on with it and show us.
I look forward to it. Hope you don't let me down.

 

[dad]

Fortunately for the poor blind person, there are a significant number of people around him who can observe the train.

Great. So who around you can see the future and past state of the universe, and how???

This may be applied as a metaphor, that is to say the blind person is a lay person, and his associates are astrophysicists, but I digress

So, who has the white cane of not being able to see the universe in the past state in that one?

If I take the liberty to assume the blind person still has his hearing and touch faculties intact, he may observe the train - and therein lies the answer to this rather weak straw man. Observe is not equal to see.

Not if the train came by millions of years before the poor fellow was groping around, trying to solve the mysteries of the universe. Focus.

But one must think of the implications of this point - if we can not observe something, do you argue it is therefore true by default, and warrants faith?

Depends on what it is you think, and claim you observe, and why.

If the null Hypothesis was such a weak argument, and the notion that the universe may have been subject to different laws of phsyics c. 6,000 ago.. well one would assume this revolutionary idea would be prevalent in every rebuttal to a scientific argument ever made on the age of the universe.

No, I would not assume that at all. I do not rebut science, only myth!

The last time I ever saw scritpure quoted in a scientific journal was... never? Perhaps they were written before the light changed, and we can no longer read them.

Maybe that is why you are in a box, a fishbowl, and so severely limited, that you base hundreds of so called science claims on a myth. You do not like to include God, and the spiritual in your pitiful little knowledge. Have fun with that.

 

[dad]

Err... complete lack of evidence, perhaps?

False. Most of the planet knows better, and that there is a spiritual. Your physical only science lacks are not the measure of reality. Get used to it.

I think not. Science is not omniscient, of course, but technological advancement has gotten to the point that if such a spiritual world existed, it would have been scientifically observed.

There you have it, folks. This poor soul actually claims that science can detect spirits!!! How ridiculous.

Science is most certainly not blind. It has other senses with which to "see".

It can see a lot of the box it is in, or fishbowl, I will grant you that.

How else am I to break it to you that you're utterly insane?

Establish the sanity of your silly claims???

Pure ignorance. How you could call Monty Python "antichrist sewage" is quite beyond me. You've either never heard of it or are just stupid. But I digress!

Easy. That is my impression about the spirit of a lot of that stuff. 'The Life of Brian' 'Holy Grail' etc.

He's not doing a very good job of helping us out, is he? Despite his omnipotence, he has yet to make an appearance in the "material world" and finally prove his existence.

False. look at the calendar, it was set to that, as best they could establish the date.

Get a move on! He can't even share with us the secrets of the universe, and we have to figure it out for ourselves. But it's no worry, we're doing a pretty good job of it.

Not at all, you are simply staring to get some of the secrets of the box!!

 

[Guest]

Yet again, dad, or as I call him: the father of ignorance, is on a mission to prove how ignorant he is...
1. You assume that the Universe was in a different state ~4400 years ago.
2. You assume that a different light existed before "the split"- no proof of that (see 3 and 4 below).
3. You assume that the earth was created in 6 literal days- no proof of that, as a matter of fact that would contradict #1 and #2, because in the different Universe you can't guarantee that the day was the same length as today.
4. Dad claims that in order for science to be correct, one must have a "same state past" (meaning that the past must be the same state as today), but it turns out that Dad needs to have the "same state past" in order to guarantee that in the different universe one day was actually the same length as today.

And finally:

I wonder if God gave me some sort of gift for debating, or if I just luck out all the time and get limp opponents? It is all too easy.

Yep, he gave you a gift for debating , the gift was IGNORANCE! AHHAHAHA You are asked what's 2+2 and one day you say -4, the next day you say 256! HAHhahahah, you are gifted dad, you are gifted, it takes a gifted person to come to two different conclusions on two different days based on the same question and BOTH conclusions happen to be WRONG! HAHAHAHAH I call that GIFTED HAHAHAH

 

[VaultZero4Me]

dad, I have read your posts, but have refrained from retorting again until I can understand your position better. I have to say that I do not see any coherent reasoning, just claims. That is, I guess, what you get when you try to resolve the pysical with the metaphysical.

I will leave you with this quote for pondering:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

– An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- David Hume

 

[Guest]

dad, I have read your posts, but have refrained from retorting again until I can understand your position better. I have to say that I do not see any coherent reasoning, just claims. That is, I guess, what you get when you try to resolve the pysical with the metaphysical.

I will leave you with this quote for pondering:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

– An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- David Hume

Dad's position is one of pure ignorance. His lack of scientific knowledge is painfully evident, but even worse is his understanding of the Bible. Dad's only claim for why science can not prove anything about the Universe in the past is because the Universe in the past was not in the same state as it is now. The only problem is that there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE, he tried to use the Bible, but even the Bible says nothing of this different state. He tried making up quotes from the Bible, but he got caught. When I cornered him on his dubious claims he tried to pull a rabbit out the hat, but the hat was empty, here are some highlights:
1. Dad claims that science needs the "same past state", but he also need the "same past state" to prove that Genesis 1 is correct and God made the Universe in 6 literal days with the same length as today. If Dad's claim that the Universe was in a different state is correct, then he can't guarantee that the length of a day then was the same as it is now (contradicts himself- it happens often), so it could have taken God billions of years to create the Universe which proves that scientific dating is right and Dad is wrong!
2. Dad claims that the event in which the "previous state Universe" became the "current state Universe" was a "split" about 4400 years ago- science has prove that is not true and the only thing Dad has to say about this is #1.
3. Dad also claims that before the split a different light existed, one which traveled faster than the current speed of light, but the Bible says nothing of that. This light is no longer visible, nor was it ever visible, but traces of it are carried in the "information of current light" evidence of which Dad claims to have found in the article about electromagnetic radiation in Wikipedia. Dad just made it up, or he did what he always does: read 2+2 and concluded -4 AND 256 .
4. Dad also claims that although all the stars are billions of light years away, none are older than 6000 years, which contradicts his previous claims because if the present light only existed for the past 4400 years, then we would not be seeing stars which are more than 4400 light years away.
5. Dad also claimed that there are no stars more than 6k light years away, which he later tried to correct himself by saying that the stars are not more than 6k years OLD. This one is evident even in dad's head, so no need for me to point out how that would contradict #4 (and all his other claims).
6. Dad says that redshift may have been caused by "the split", but that contradicts 1-5, so Dad's wrong on that one too.
7. Dad, you are officially the father of ignorance! You call other people ignorant, but you take the crown !
I can keep going, this list is fairly long, but 7 seems like a good number

 

[Dunzo]

Christ.
Dad, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You have utterly failed to scientifically prove your claims, and have also failed to disprove alternate theories. As far as I can see, your claim is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
Come up with some evidence, or you'll have to forgive the rest of us, and the scientific community, for scoffing at your totally unsupported, nonsensical ideas.

Have a merry Christmas.

 

[dad]

Yet again, dad, or as I call him: the father of ignorance, is on a mission to prove how ignorant he is...

Now, now. Tut tut.

1. You assume that the Universe was in a different state ~4400 years ago.

So?

2. You assume that a different light existed before "the split"- no proof of that (see 3 and 4 below).

So? I have the bible, and a bible case, you have a myth you call a science case. If you claim a certain state of the universe and light in the past as part of science, pony up the evidences. Or, remain being exposed as having nothing but a false set of claims.

3. You assume that the earth was created in 6 literal days- no proof of that, as a matter of fact that would contradict #1 and #2, because in the different Universe you can't guarantee that the day was the same length as today.

Irrelevant, since you have no proof it wasn't.

4. Dad claims that in order for science to be correct, one must have a "same state past" (meaning that the past must be the same state as today), but it turns out that Dad needs to have the "same state past" in order to guarantee that in the different universe one day was actually the same length as today.

Nonsense. time of the eternal state changes not, a day will always be a day, even in heaven. A day is even pretty close to a day in this temporary state.

 

[dad]

dad, I have read your posts, but have refrained from retorting again until I can understand your position better. I have to say that I do not see any coherent reasoning, just claims. That is, I guess, what you get when you try to resolve the pysical with the metaphysical.

I will leave you with this quote for pondering:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

– An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- David Hume

In other words, Hume admitted to being of a limited mind, accepting only natural evidences as any sort of reality. That kept him from ever being able to see he was a creature of the fishbowl, which is committed to destruct, and be no more.

If all you allow in your life and head is the things that are physical, then you will be like the foolish man, that built his house on the sand. This universe state is like sand, cause it can't last. But, no matter how you huff, and you puff, you can't blow down the house of those that built it on a rock. The forever state is like a rock, that will never pass away.

 

[dad]

Christ.
Dad, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Excellent! I therefore dismiss the same past state! You, however cannot dismiss the bible, it works in millions of test tubes, over and over again, -people.

You have utterly failed to scientifically prove your claims,

You have, and you are the one with a so called science case! Go figure. Pretty shabby.

and have also failed to disprove alternate theories. As far as I can see, your claim is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Do show us how the same universe state in the past is to be falsified, then you can talk. And only then, which will be never!

Come up with some evidence, or you'll have to forgive the rest of us, and the scientific community, for scoffing at your totally unsupported, nonsensical ideas.

You can scoff at other myths all you like, you still need to support your claims of science. No wiggling out of that.

Have a merry Christmas.

Thank you, and the top of the season to you as well.

 

[dad]

1. Dad claims that science needs the "same past state", but he also need the "same past state" to prove that Genesis 1 is correct and God made the Universe in 6 literal days with the same length as today. If Dad's claim that the Universe was in a different state is correct, then he can't guarantee that the length of a day then was the same as it is now (contradicts himself- it happens often), so it could have taken God billions of years to create the Universe which proves that scientific dating is right and Dad is wrong!

No temporary state is needed to prove a day existed. There are days in heaven as well. Now, I call my first witness, to that fact, in case any should doubt it. -God!!! One of the key names of God is 'The Ancient of DAYS'

Another example is New Jerusalem.

Re 21:25 - And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

2. Dad claims that the event in which the "previous state Universe" became the "current state Universe" was a "split" about 4400 years ago- science has prove that is not true and the only thing Dad has to say about this is #1.

Show us that proof. That is not true.

3. Dad also claims that before the split a different light existed, one which traveled faster than the current speed of light, but the Bible says nothing of that. This light is no longer visible, nor was it ever visible, but traces of it are carried in the "information of current light" evidence of which Dad claims to have found in the article about electromagnetic radiation in Wikipedia. Dad just made it up, or he did what he always does: read 2+2 and concluded -4 AND 256 .

What do you mean light was not visible?

4. Dad also claims that although all the stars are billions of light years away, none are older than 6000 years, which contradicts his previous claims because if the present light only existed for the past 4400 years, then we would not be seeing stars which are more than 4400 light years away.

False. Distance matters not, because the slow light never existed before. It only matters now, since we set the ruler to light speed.

5. Dad also claimed that there are no stars more than 6k light years away, which he later tried to correct himself by saying that the stars are not more than 6k years OLD. This one is evident even in dad's head, so no need for me to point out how that would contradict #4 (and all his other claims).

No, you simply were a little slow to catch on. You can read this, written years before your question, if you doubt.
http://geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip

6. Dad says that redshift may have been caused by "the split", but that contradicts 1-5, so Dad's wrong on that one too.

No, not even close.

 

[Guest]

1. Dad claims that science needs the "same past state", but he also need the "same past state" to prove that Genesis 1 is correct and God made the Universe in 6 literal days with the same length as today. If Dad's claim that the Universe was in a different state is correct, then he can't guarantee that the length of a day then was the same as it is now (contradicts himself- it happens often), so it could have taken God billions of years to create the Universe which proves that scientific dating is right and Dad is wrong!

No temporary state is needed to prove a day existed. There are days in heaven as well. Now, I call my first witness, to that fact, in case any should doubt it. -God!!! One of the key names of God is 'The Ancient of DAYS'

Yes, but the length of a day is not defined . Learn to read dad, I'm not questioning if days existed, I am questioning how long they were. According to the Bible 1 day was from sunrise to sunset, but we don't know how long it took for each to occur .

Another example is New Jerusalem.

Re 21:25 - And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

How much is 2+2 again? Learn to read dad! Learn to read... SO what is it that you're trying to show me in your above quote? Listen dad, I'm not a mind reader, if you want to say something say it, so far it seems as if you have no point there. Not even worth my time.

2. Dad claims that the event in which the "previous state Universe" became the "current state Universe" was a "split" about 4400 years ago- science has prove that is not true and the only thing Dad has to say about this is #1.

Show us that proof. That is not true.

It's true because we have plenty of scientific data to support that idea. The only argument that you have against it kills itself, because you depend on it too for all your other claims . Furthermore, besides your irrelevant assumption about "same past state", you have no proof whatsoever. Your entire argument hinges on one straw- STRAW MAN!

3. Dad also claims that before the split a different light existed, one which traveled faster than the current speed of light, but the Bible says nothing of that. This light is no longer visible, nor was it ever visible, but traces of it are carried in the "information of current light" evidence of which Dad claims to have found in the article about electromagnetic radiation in Wikipedia. Dad just made it up, or he did what he always does: read 2+2 and concluded -4 AND 256 .

What do you mean light was not visible?

What I mean is that we never saw the "fast light", so if we never saw it, then it couldn't have illuminated anything between the split and the time "slow light" needed to get to the Earth from stars beyond 6k light years (distance).

4. Dad also claims that although all the stars are billions of light years away, none are older than 6000 years, which contradicts his previous claims because if the present light only existed for the past 4400 years, then we would not be seeing stars which are more than 4400 light years away.

False. Distance matters not, because the slow light never existed before. It only matters now, since we set the ruler to light speed.

Yes, it matters now because that's all we see and that's all we ever saw... did you not think about what you're saying? Distance is the exact thing that matters, any star beyond 6k light years away (distance) would not be seen at the moment because the "slow light" is too slow to get here, and the "fast light" was never seen by the present humans.

5. Dad also claimed that there are no stars more than 6k light years away, which he later tried to correct himself by saying that the stars are not more than 6k years OLD. This one is evident even in dad's head, so no need for me to point out how that would contradict #4 (and all his other claims).

No, you simply were a little slow to catch on. You can read this, written years before your question, if you doubt.
http://geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip

1. You need to use an actual web page, I am not going to open random zip files.
2. You are the one that was using "away" as a term for age, so learn how to express yourself correctly before you start calling other people slow.
3. You show no proof AGAIN!

6. Dad says that redshift may have been caused by "the split", but that contradicts 1-5, so Dad's wrong on that one too.

No, not even close.

OK, that's all you have to say? Well, I see it was a great argument LOL, you know, you could take that argument and try to prove that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, give it a shot .
Dad, if you have a point make it, but if you don't then just accept the fact that you are not qualified enough to talk about the topic and just move on.

So now you have two great arguments "same past state" and "not even close" hahah! I'm telling you, I would give you a noble prize for those two , the only problem is that you need proof for both of them, and you are YET to show any .