Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

dad

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

dad last won the day on May 30

dad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About dad

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    00
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    western world

Recent Profile Visitors

111 profile views
  1. I would think the poster would be so embarrassed that they would try to post some sort of proof. As for guns, I am not sure what to think. If we have a country, say, with good and bad guys armed, and there is a majority of bad guys, that could get ticklish. Not for cartels? Well cheer up they can get guns now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation That question is more loaded than a gun. In many cases I suspect it is a heart set that works it's way to the mind.
  2. I wonder too. Have any proof any deaths occurred because of not believing your climate models of the past, and political projections of doom?
  3. I suspect that if they found carbon dates that didn't fit, they would conjure up elaborate excuses anyhow.
  4. You are wrong. One minute you say it is wrong to say they have beliefs, and the next you admit it and claim reasons for them. Ha. Hey we all have reasons for our beliefs. Have you some reason to assume that the forces that bond atoms together were identical? If not, then we could not assume that all electrons and orbits would be identical that were associated with an atom. Any tiny change would make a difference. Do we know if gravity on earth was identical to today? (if you claim you do, explain why) Do we know all reactions gave off the same heat in the former nature? I would be careful there. Not knowing is not a good reason to assume a same set of rules! real science should not be all about not knowing! I say that the records from the past in ancient history and Scripture point to nature being different. That means you need more than a feeling or belief or hunch to model the origin of life itself and the universe!
  5. Whatever. I don't take it seriously as it is a story strung together with beliefs that keep changing.
  6. OK. Funny how the rings were not predicted. Years ago, they used to say the rings preexisted the explosion. " What produced this ring? It may have been thrown off by a merger between the main star and a binary companion, some 20,000 years before the explosion. " https://www.nature.com/articles/35742 They make claims that they drop like a hot potato as they get busted.
  7. Let's assume it is. You still only see it here. So that means that you experience and observe it exclusively here in our time. What takes, say, 51 days here, might only involve a tiny fraction of that time there. We don't know as we have ever only been here. All observations are here. So let's say the sn was actually 30 light days away (since science cannot know distances, we can use almost any number here). Let's say that one stage on a process of decay took 51 days as we experience time here. Let's say that time was different out there, and that the amount of time involved was something like 1/1000 of a second. Yet we observe it taking 51 days here! The issue is not whether there are processes that change isotopes and elements out there also. Not at all because if time were not the same, nor space, the slice of space we took as a base line from this solar system would not equal the other lines in a parallax measurement! So we could not get a distance from it. That is another topic. I could argue for that also, but don't want to get into it as it would be another thread. Which explanation best fits the creation by God? I don't think that laws are the issue here, but time and space. After all if the object was a very different size than we imagine and say, only a light month away, that would change the math drastically! I propose science doesn't know. Yet by blindly assuming sameness science makes models that oppose God's word. Why would I believe it for no reason? The issue in deep space is not laws of nature. The issue there is space and time being unlike we know them here. The issue ON EARTH in the past is the laws of nature, and you can't test those at all.
  8. I think in their models the huge distances to the edges of the rings involve some time for light to reach them. So I don't think they claim instant.
  9. Science has nothing more than beliefs as the basis for models of the past. You offer nothing. Apparently you feel that Scripture is some sort of fallacy. You are welcome to your religious baseless opinion, we see you have no actual science here.
  10. It is a monumental reality that your religion uses only beliefs and calls it science in all matters of origins. Not funny.
  11. Post your strawmen elsewhere. Time is not a law, and the only evidence that must be posted is by those who claim it is the same in all the universe. You can't and that means the claims such as distances and great ages that are based on it are all a pile of steaming nonsense.
  12. Science has claimed that nature on earth was the same. Your foundation is without proof. Yet it is used in all models of the past, and future! If you are talking about deep space, then it is time itself and space itself that are the issue, and not laws. So don't tell others they do not understand, when the deficit is on your end.
  13. Strawman. Laws in far space are not the issue here. The issue is space and time themselves. Without these being the same no distances can be known. That would mean that you are seeing light here on earth from heaven knows how far away, that took an unknown time to get here! So if we see decay HERE we see it happen in OUR time. That does not mean time is the same. All that means is that here in the fishbowl, things take so much time to happen. The change is not in speed. The change might be in time itself. That means that relativity is only relative to the fishbowl! We observe it all here, and here we do have laws and a certain space and time. Here we can see cobalt and etc. We would not be changing C where we are and where we observe it. If light moved in space and time that was absolutely not like the time and space we know here, then obviously it would not involve the same time in moving! You seem to think that we need to change the way light moves in time once we observe it here. No. You know that the law of conservation applies in the far universe...how? You see, we would not need to conserve the fishbowl energy we know. All that would matter is what happened before it got here. But wait ! ! ! Under Newton's laws of Universal gravitation, the force of gravity is G(m1m2)/(r^2). If we now have only 1/4 the mass, we will have only 1/16 the gravity so the gravitational constant G needs to increase by a factor of 16. How much energy may be involved moving through a different space and in different time is nor known. Try to think out of the fishbowl. Since my claim is that we do not know, the only evidence we need is to show you do not know!
  14. You take a huge swath of this solar system time and space and try to omit/ignore the time potion of space and time. All that gives us is a what if distance. IF space and time were the same all the way, then we would have a distance. We also would be able to use units like light 'years', because how much time was involved would be known. You do NOT know how much time out there exists or is involved!. We do not know time exists out there as we know it here. We do not know space exists as we know it out there. We do not know what we think of as spacetime exists out there. So you cannot draw a line representing OUR space and our time to a star and declare that there is a certain amount of time and space between here and there! False. The ring is there in time and space, not here. You just believed for no reason it was all homogeneous. If you knew what sort of star it was before the fact, rather than having computer modelled what sort of star is must have been after the fact, you could talk. No big deal. Something did happen out there, and there was a small difference in arrival time between neutrinos and light. To be more precise, you credit arrival of neutrinos with a supernova event...whoopee do.
  15. That star is of unknown size and distance. We should note that science did not expect rings, and merely scrambled to explain them after the fact. They also scrambled to cook up what type of stars 'golly gee must have' exploded! etc.
×

Important Information

Our Terms