[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[dad]

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

You are misinformed. The present is claimed to be the key to the future, as well as the past. There is no possible natural science to back that up! I do NOT claim the laws of physics have chanhed, stop saying I do. I say there will be, and was a whole new heavens, or universe. Different laws. Laws that apply to both physical, and spiritual. Today's temporary state laws only apply to the temporary natural universe of the present.
Our light was not here, any more than radioactive decay was here. Any more than the present fundamental forces were here. Are you getting the picture?

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

You have no idea what you are talking about. What observations, show what ideas are wrong?? Spell it out.

Why not?

You cannot claim the state of the future will be the same , because...YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!! Couldn't be a better reason than that, could there?? The bible does talk of the state of the future, and new universe! God was there, so He CAN talk. You can't. Certainly not as a science case!!! You can believe whatever myths you like about the future, of course.

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

Correction: no you have not in any way, shape, or form! Far away has nothing to do with great time at all. The ONLY thing that says that is....your assumption of a same universe in the past. You can't prove it. Can you???

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

I agree. Their conception was 4400 years ago, however, at the split, when the physical only laws came to be. You can't see beyond that, to the different universe!

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

I don't say, once again they have changed. So that is a moot point. The universe is what changed, and the light in it. Since our light came to be, I assume no change. If some science says there was a little change or not, wouldn't matter, that is not what I am talking about. Are you starting to get it?

No, science doesn't.

You say science does not claim that the present is the key to the past. That is false. Many branches of science rest on that foundational claim!

Here is a nasa site. Do you need 100,000 more sites that make the same claim??
"The well-known geologic maxim, "the present is the key to the past," has a complement: the present is the key to the future,.."
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/lowman/lowman.html

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

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

All the millions who believe the bible is the inspired word of God believe it is a spiritual book. Gos is a spirit, haven't you heard.

It is evidenced.

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

Funny, if your same past is evidenced you can't present it here. Is it a secret? Is it hiding in a closet somewhere?? Your are wrong, and that is false. I provide evidence of that, in your failure to produce the said evidence.
As for evidences that are spiritual, spiritual people are well aware of them, they abound. They are not natural evidences, and out of your little realm.

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

What angels have YOU interviewed? What are YOU talking about?

There are no Ghostbusters, don't be silly. Science deals only in the natural. Natural science cannot detect angels, or God, or anything spiritual. Science only observes tha natural, so, naturally, misses all the spiritual, that goes on behind the scenes. Thaey are in no position to comment even on what they can't see.

 

[dad]

Hey Dad, Ole Buddy, sad to see you changed u'll Old Pick!

I do that a lot.

[quote:89f18]!. All you ever do, is argue not debate!
2. You take issues that cant be proved one way or another, and use it against known scientific principles, without proof.

Glad you admit the same past cannot be proved. I agree. That means it is a belief. It needs to be taught as such, not science.

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

My point is, that, it is not the same light. It is not the same universe state. The former light got here real fast. Today's light is the form of light that can exist in a physical only universe. In this universe, and space, it exists as is, and is very slow in comparison. Like a physical body is slow compared to a spirit. Things in this state are limited. Things in this state decay. Information is still carried in our light, from the former state, but the light itself is different.
In heaven, we know there is also a different light. We have no need of the light of the sun. A different light lights our city. Also, on earth, people when dying, usually see the light at the end of the tunnel. That is not an earthly light. It, for example, doesn't hurt the eys, if I recall some testimonies. The spiritual light is not limited by physical universe speeds.

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

Whay would I put a box on what you say? You haven't really said much. Don't worry, no one is afraid of anything you can say.

Hebrews 11:1&3 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.

[/quote:89f18]
Nice verse. Translated, it almost seems to say that our heavens we see, are made not of these things we now see! In other words, the PO universe of the present is not made of the same stuff as the new heavens coming, or, in this case, refering to the past, how they were??!

 

[dad]

I'm not sure what you are saying, "if you were a theist". What is your religious belief, if any?

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

No. The speed of present light is near constant, it is only safe to assume it was constant since our light came to be. When a universe has the spiritual seperated, big changes happen. Down to the quantum, and atomic levels, etc.

 

[Orion]

No. The speed of present light is near constant, it is only safe to assume it was constant since our light came to be. When a universe has the spiritual seperated, big changes happen. Down to the quantum, and atomic levels, etc.

I understand what you're saying, . . . .and to make everything fit with a young earth and universe, you have to make such assumptions. However, what you state is mere speculations at best, would not be backed up by scritpure, thus why I said that there has to be SOMETHING that happened that may not be know-able while we are existing on this planet. I happen to have my theories on that, but am open to critique, as I would hope that your theory would be in your mind.

 

[dad]

I understand what you're saying, . . . .and to make everything fit with a young earth and universe, you have to make such assumptions. However, what you state is mere speculations at best, would not be backed up by scritpure,

On the contrary, of course it is well backed with scripture.

http://geocities.com/heddidit

thus why I said that there has to be SOMETHING that happened that may not be know-able while we are existing on this planet.

No "thus" it is a bible case.

I happen to have my theories on that, but am open to critique, as I would hope that your theory would be in your mind.

Of course my ideas are open to challenge. Haven't met anyone yet who could challenge them on the bible, or science, but, hey, the ring is open for contenders who dare.

 

[Slevin]

You are misinformed. The present is claimed to be the key to the future, as well as the past.

No, it isn't. It really doesn't matter what you say since you never back anything up with evidence. You merely claim everything and then handwave evidence.

I do NOT claim the laws of physics have chanhed, stop saying I do. I say there will be, and was a whole new heavens, or universe. Different laws. Laws that apply to both physical, and spiritual. Today's temporary state laws only apply to the temporary natural universe of the present.

Yes, and you have no evidence to back that up.

Our light was not here, any more than radioactive decay was here. Any more than the present fundamental forces were here. Are you getting the picture?

I've always understood your dad-hocery, it's ridiculous assertions with nonsense speculation.

You cannot claim the state of the future will be the same , because...YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!! Couldn't be a better reason than that, could there?? The bible does talk of the state of the future, and new universe! God was there, so He CAN talk. You can't. Certainly not as a science case!!! You can believe whatever myths you like about the future, of course.

I never claimed to believe anything, I'm stating what speculation about the future is and you're claiming that scientists think it's cold hard fact. They know it isn't, so stop misrepresenting that. You can believe in whatever myths you like too, and of course you do.

Correction: no you have not in any way, shape, or form! Far away has nothing to do with great time at all. The ONLY thing that says that is....your assumption of a same universe in the past. You can't prove it. Can you???

I don't need to prove it, if you think the universe was different or there was a different universe then you need to provide evidence of that assertion! Since there is no indication that light wasn't there until a few thousand years ago, that's all we need to go on.

I agree. Their conception was 4400 years ago, however, at the split, when the physical only laws came to be. You can't see beyond that, to the different universe!

There was no different universe, so now we can see past 4400 years ago. There was no split.

You say science does not claim that the present is the key to the past. That is false. Many branches of science rest on that foundational claim!

That is one group of scientists.

All the millions who believe the bible is the inspired word of God believe it is a spiritual book. Gos is a spirit, haven't you heard.

So? That doesn't mean you're right.

Funny, if your same past is evidenced you can't present it here. Is it a secret? Is it hiding in a closet somewhere?? Your are wrong, and that is false. I provide evidence of that, in your failure to produce the said evidence.
As for evidences that are spiritual, spiritual people are well aware of them, they abound. They are not natural evidences, and out of your little realm.

I have provided it, you just ignore it and say that those didn't exist before the split. Well, where's your evidence for a split?

There are no Ghostbusters, don't be silly. Science deals only in the natural. Natural science cannot detect angels, or God, or anything spiritual. Science only observes tha natural, so, naturally, misses all the spiritual, that goes on behind the scenes. Thaey are in no position to comment even on what they can't see.

Science deals with any aspect of reality that can be studied. If someone says "Oh my! Zeus lives in the clouds and causes thunder!" Then scientists will study the phenomena that causes thunder and conclude that it is not caused by Zeus.

It's called debunking, and yes, science can deal with the supernatural. It deals with it by showing that you are wrong.

You have no special weapon that prevents science from dealing with your claims. That's only a sad cop-out so that you can believe something without ever having to provide any evidence for it.

 

[Slevin]

I'm not sure what you are saying, "if you were a theist". What is your religious belief, if any?

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

I know what you were saying.

I'm an atheist, so I have no religious belief.

 

[dad]

Science deals with any aspect of reality that can be studied. If someone says "Oh my! Zeus lives in the clouds and causes thunder!" Then scientists will study the phenomena that causes thunder and conclude that it is not caused by Zeus.

Any aspect it CAN study, that would be only natural. No possible denying this.

It's called debunking, and yes, science can deal with the supernatural. It deals with it by showing that you are wrong.

Showing you are blind, does not address whether there is something you cannot see. Think about it.

You have no special weapon that prevents science from dealing with your claims.

Hey I'd need one for them to be able to address them.

That's only a sad cop-out so that you can believe something without ever having to provide any evidence for it.

Great, so show us how the natural man is better here. Provide evidence for a sam future state!!!! Science does claim the sun will 'burn out' one day, etc. Show us you are not a cop out!! You are busted.

I have a spiritual claim, with spiritual evidences coming out the spiritual evidences!!!!!

 

[dad]

I know what you were saying.

I'm an atheist, so I have no religious belief.

You simply prefer to call your beliefs something else, like science if you can get away with it!

 

[Slevin]

Any aspect it CAN study, that would be only natural. No possible denying this.

No, that's anything that can be empirically studied. I am denying it, because it's not true.

Showing you are blind, does not address whether there is something you cannot see. Think about it.

I did, it's tripe.

Great, so show us how the natural man is better here. Provide evidence for a sam future state!!!! Science does claim the sun will 'burn out' one day, etc. Show us you are not a cop out!! You are busted.

I have a spiritual claim, with spiritual evidences coming out the spiritual evidences!!!!!

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Scientists who study the sun have indicated that as the Sun loses energy, based on the laws of physics that it will eventually die in approximately 5 billion years.

This isn't "one day", this is a long, long time.

Provide evidence for a different future state. I'm providing no cop-out. If the future "state" is different, then clearly the sun wont burn out. Since you have provided nothing to indicate that it will be different, the sun will burn out.

You have a belief, which you think is spiritual. You have no "spiritual evidences". If you did, then "spiritual people" would flock to you.

 

[Slevin]

You simply prefer to call your beliefs something else, like science if you can get away with it!

Uh, no.

 

[dad]

Uh, no.

Of course. Like the same past myth, just belief, and assumptions. Not knowing, then the state of the far past, how can one say what redshift was actually caused by? They can't. How can they say trees never grew in a week? They can't. How can they say we still lived under a hundred years, usually? They can't. So, please, do not have the nerve to pulpit pound your beliefs, while demeaning the faith of the real living God.

 

[blunthitta4life]

Dad perhaps you should actually do some research instead of making ignorant claims.

Not knowing, then the state of the far past, how can one say what redshift was actually caused by? They can't.

Actually....
Redshift is caused by an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted from a source. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called a blueshift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

How can they say trees never grew in a week? They can't. How can they say we still lived under a hundred years, usually? They can't.

Well we can look at historical records of people who lived in the past and it has been determined that our life expectancy now is greater than it has ever been. As for people during the biblical times, I have no idea if we have sufficient records.

So, please, do not have the nerve to pulpit pound your beliefs, while demeaning the faith of the real living God.

And what exactly are you doing? You have provided NO EVIDENCE for any of your claims, while pushing your own beliefs. This is called hypocrisy and you are a hypocrite.

However, I find it amusing that a person who's beliefs require faith sit here and try and prove his beliefs. Are you doing this for us or yourself? Its not your fault you are only human.

 

[Slevin]

Of course. Like the same past myth, just belief, and assumptions. Not knowing, then the state of the far past, how can one say what redshift was actually caused by? They can't.

They do know the state of the far past, because they've observed it. They know what redshift is actually caused by.

How can they say trees never grew in a week? They can't.

Of course they can, no tree ever found exhibits rapid growth, therefore your idea is unevidenced.

How can they say we still lived under a hundred years, usually? They can't.

Of course we can, we can determine the age of a person through a number of forensic testing. Any people we've found from the past do not have huge ages.

So, please, do not have the nerve to pulpit pound your beliefs, while demeaning the faith of the real living God.

Haha, they're not beliefs, they're evidenced ideas. Contentions which have stood the test of time.

Where am I demeaning God's faith? I wasn't aware that God had faith.

Where am I even demeaning anyones faith?

 

[dad]

Dad perhaps you should actually do some research instead of making ignorant claims.

My claims are anti ignorant, inspired, biblical, and meet all evidence of science available. Try to focus.

And what exactly are you doing? You have provided NO EVIDENCE for any of your claims, while pushing your own beliefs. This is called hypocrisy and you are a hypocrite.

Science claims a same state past, and future. Is this news to you? They can't begin, as they will admit to prove it. It is strictly an assumption. That is where we stand. For, example, redshift.
That was not observed in the far past at all. That has no records in the far past at all. We simply look in the present, after the fact, and try to apply present state possible causes, as to why it got that way.

If we look at the stars, we see some redish ones, and lighter colored ones. In the car picture below, more or less, the same sort of thing. I think the general pattern is even somewhat similar. The red lights are going away from us, the light ones, coming at us. Much the same as what they say of blue/red shift, no??

Is it that hard to imagine a big universe change, wherewe were left with our natural light, and universe, and it got sort of freeze framed, depending on the slight direction it may have been moving at the time?? Some this way, som that!!
(just to try to get the general concept across, that the split could leave what we see as well)
And, so, we might ask, how big, really is the universe, if the main way they measure it is with colored lights!!!!!!!!???

However, I find it amusing that a person who's beliefs require faith sit here and try and prove his beliefs. Are you doing this for us or yourself? Its not your fault you are only human.

The same past and future are beliefs. The reason they are on the carpet, is because they are also called science, falsely! Care to defend them?? Or is blind faith and bad religion good enough for you??

 

[dad]

Haha, they're not beliefs, they're evidenced ideas. Contentions which have stood the test of time.

They fail before your eyes, and you still hand wave???? You cannot support tham. And don't think that some clever professor, or scientist could either. No one can.

No proof exists in natural science for the sate of the future or far past, it is only assumed to be as the present. That is not science. You are wrong. Not the slightest speck of evidence exists for that.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

--So if we can va va va view the time, say 13 million years ago of wa what happened then. And we can estimate the distance and the time it took to get us! (speculatin') Were seeing what happened back then, and continuing to view it in realtime as it was then.
--Why why why why wwoa woa woa would anyone think the past which we missed or the future which hasn't happened yet be any different that wa what we viewing or have viewierd over different portions of the sky and at different distances and times?
--Why don't you enlighten us with your theory of everything, Trumping einstein and his grand unified theory, quantum physics and Sting theory and tell us what is really going on!

 

[dad]

--So if we can va va va view the time, say 13 million years ago of wa what happened then. And we can estimate the distance and the time it took to get us! (speculatin')

No, because the snapshot was taken long ago, and the state of the universe was not the same. The actual cause of the redshift then is unknown. IF the state of the universe was as no, then we would likely know, but that is not the case. We have no idea. The same past is a myth, not proved or observed by science. We see after the fact. We have no idea of the state.

Were seeing what happened back then, and continuing to view it in realtime as it was then.

The question is, when was then? Was it 4400 years ago in a different state universe? Or is there proof the state of the universe was always the same, so it had to be longer than that?? Whenever it was, yes, something left a redshifted light. You simply assume that the past was as now, and that is not science.

--Why why why why wwoa woa woa would anyone think the past which we missed or the future which hasn't happened yet be any different that wa what we viewing or have viewierd over different portions of the sky and at different distances and times?

Plenty of reasons. But the question is, why simply think, what can be proved? The answer is that it can't be proved, only assumed.
For natural only limited folks, naturally, you would assume there will never be and was never anything else but this state. That is worthless. Just a belief.

The bible, however does tell us there will be a new heavens, and that these ones will pass away! You demonstrate that there is no reason scientifically to doubt that at all. If the future is the key to the past, as I claim, rather than the present, as you claim, then the past was similar!
Only believers have the key to the future, however. Natural on;ly folks simply have their assumptions, and beliefs!!!

--Why don't you enlighten us with your theory of everything, Trumping einstein and his grand unified theory, quantum physics and Sting theory and tell us what is really going on!

You think Einstein had a grand unified theory??
Anyhow, Einstein's ideas were strictly relative to the box!! Strictly natural only based deductions. His ideas are only valid in the temporary present universe state, not in the far past, or future at all, in any way! He is certainly trumped.

 

[blunthitta4life]

No, because the snapshot was taken long ago, and the state of the universe was not the same. The actual cause of the redshift then is unknown. IF the state of the universe was as no, then we would likely know, but that is not the case. We have no idea. The same past is a myth, not proved or observed by science. We see after the fact. We have no idea of the state.

I explained it earlier....don't just wave away evidence. WE KNOW WHAT CAUSES RED SHIFT.

In response to your picture that is not the same as redshift because te cars aren't emitting any radiation.

The question is, when was then? Was it 4400 years ago in a different state universe? Or is there proof the state of the universe was always the same, so it had to be longer than that?? Whenever it was, yes, something left a redshifted light. You simply assume that the past was as now, and that is not science.

We are able to see billions of years into the past into the early formation of the universe because the light is now reaching us. So yea, we can safely say the universe hasnt had any crazy breakdown of the laws of physics TO FIT YOUR NOTION OF WHAT THE BIBLE SHOULD BE.

My claims are anti ignorant, inspired, biblical, and meet all evidence of science available. Try to focus.

Actually none of your ideas meet all the evidence of science available. You have yet to prove anything and keep waving off the evidence in front of you.

 

[dad]

I explained it earlier....don't just wave away evidence. WE KNOW WHAT CAUSES RED SHIFT.

In response to your picture that is not the same as redshift because te cars aren't emitting any radiation.

Absurd. No one claims cars have redshift. Cut the strawman nonsense. The point was, that the expansion of the universe they claim, is evidenced by redshifted stars. The receed away from us, is the claim, at breakneck speeds. Like cars, that were represented by the red tail lights moving away from us. It was a simple illustration. Like blueshifted stars, they claim are coming at us. Like the car headlights. So we can look at stars the same way, for different reasons, the redshifted ones it is claimed go away, the blue, come at us.
If the universe state change caused the redshifting however, a whole rethink is needed. Distances even are guaged by the spectrum!!!!!

We are able to see billions of years into the past into the early formation of the universe because the light is now reaching us. So yea, we can safely say the universe hasnt had any crazy breakdown of the laws of physics TO FIT YOUR NOTION OF WHAT THE BIBLE SHOULD BE.

No, you simply see far away (not as far as you think) and assume the past that it represents was the same state past, but have zero evidence. Nothing but a myth. 100% It is false to call it science, it is assumption, in the raw.

Actually none of your ideas meet all the evidence of science available. You have yet to prove anything and keep waving off the evidence in front of you.

You are the one with a science claim, that can't prove it. Mine is a bible claim and I have great support.

Actually none of your ideas meet all the evidence of science available. You have yet to prove anything and keep waving off the evidence in front of you.

All my ideas meet science where it applies, in the present. No science meets the future or far past, is your problem. That is why you can't prove the claims of science that the past and future are the same!