View Poll Results: DO YOU PLACE YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST ALONE FOR SALVATION BELIEVING HE DIED N ROSE AGAIN?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    9 12.50%
  • NO

    33 45.83%
  • I ALREADY PLACED MY FAITH IN CHRIST AND HIS SACRIFICE FOR MY SINS

    23 31.94%
  • OTHER

    7 9.72%
Reply
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 411
  1. #211
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    This is where YEC creationists often hide when backed into a corner: tacitly admitting that the only way their story makes sense is if God is trolling the crap out of humanity by creating a universe that looks exactly like it's 14 billion years old but is actually only 6K years old.

    At this point it would be so much simpler and more consistent to stop clinging to the lies and go with the reality of a vast ancient universe.
    Nope. I always said that there were several explanations, but you obviously didn't read carefully enough. I am not backed into a corner. I think the time dilation makes the most sense. And I notice that you don't want to address my very troubling questions for evolutionists.

    The only lie is evolution. The Bible is 10000000% true and God is 10000000% real.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #212
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 32,303
    Rep Power: 81018
    Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    Nope. I always said that there were several explanations, but you obviously didn't read carefully enough. I am not backed into a corner. I think the time dilation makes the most sense. And I notice that you don't want to address my very troubling questions for evolutionists.

    The only lie is evolution. The Bible is 10000000% true and God is 10000000% real.
    You have never actually raised a troubling question regarding the fact of evolution, if you'd like to do so now, go ahead. I didn't respond to your entire post because it's redundant, I'll let numberguy do it if he feels like it, it was addressed to him after all. I just wanted to point out the bit where creationists have to go with the Troll God model sometimes, because I find it entertaining.

    BTW accusing people of skipping over tough questions is amazingly hypocritical given the way you've ducked any kind of discussion after being repeatedly demolished on your outlandish claims given the moon, speed of light, radioactive decay etc.

    Again though, this is par for the course for creationists. I'm not disagreeing with you in writing for your sake, I can tell that you are too invested in your world view to be open to changing your mind or even engage in rational discussion. Rather I think it's worth doing this sometimes because someone is is in two minds about the whole thing can see which side of the debate has honest participants who can bring facts to the table and which side simply stubbornly repeats themselves despite being repeatedly debunked.

    Lastly, I like your bit about "10000000%", I can see your grip on basic maths hasn't yet improved.
    Last edited by Mr Beer; 09-16-2019 at 06:58 PM.
    I will read and review 100 books this year: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=176675491

    “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
    Reply With Quote

  3. #213
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. The moon rocks are NOT 2 million years old either.

    You can deny the time dilation theory, but it's just one of a few possible reasons for the star light being so far away. Another theory is that God created them with an appearance of age and He may have just as He created Adam probably not as a fetus.

    The Bible is God's word, not the Hebrews word and it's pretty clear that the earth is round and hangs in outer space. How did they know it hangs in outer space. Did they have rocket ships? Or maybe it's just that God inspired the Bible.

    Joshua's long day was likely a local event where God kept it light longer. How do you explain the darkness that happened at the time of Christ's crucifixion that occurred and was written about in secular history?

    As far as the moon goes, it couldn't be 4 billion years old or even 2 billion years old. If it were 2 billion years old, it would be touching the earth because it's pulling away from the earth and at the rate it is pulling away, it would touch the earth in 2 billion. Even if it were only half as far away from the earth as it is now, the tides would be so high that all life on earth would die. So it can't even be 1 billion years old. How do you explain that?
    Your posts are just getting hilariously bad at this point. Let's try a verrrrrrrry rough outline of the discussion ITT on, say the moon recession thing:

    -You start by saying the moon would have been touching the earth millions of years ago, or 1-2 billion years ago.
    -The literal calculations are provided ITT by Mr Beer and myself that show you are just making up nonsense
    -Ignoring these calculations entirely, or at best saying the rate of recession is not constant, you continue to stand by your point.
    -If the rate of recession is not constant, then your calculations would be bogus (saying moon would be touching earth after X time- how could you know this without knowing the rate?)
    -You have no answer to any of this and continue with the drivel
    -Even new research is linked that seems to indicate the moon was 340,000 km away about 1.4 Billion years ago- of course no response to this study.
    -After all of this....almost as if the entire discussion didn't take place whatstover.....you now, with your hands to your ears, say screw it, I'm tripling down on everything! Moon would be touching the earth 2 billion years ago! Laa la la, I can't hear youuuuuu!!!!

    Just lol at your approach to any of this. Your points are simply being ripped from creationist sites (since I guess you can't think for yourself), and they have been refuted to death. Nope, the earth and moon are both very old, on the order of 4+ billion years.

    Also, the sun was very specifically stopped in the sky for about a full day in Joshua 10. Under the correct view of heliocentrism, sun stopping = the earth suddenly stopped rotating for a full day, and this simply didn't happen- the consequences would have been vast.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  4. #214
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    I agree with the above post of Mr. Beer that the point of this discussion isn't to convince Paddington- no amount of evidence will ever convince him. It is simply to expose the position for how obviously weak it is. Although most people seem to rationally accept the evidence of the old earth, if someone wasn't sure, and read through this thread, it is pretty easy for them to see which side is putting up better arguments. And which side is routinely dishonest as hell. So congrats Paddington- you are helping convince these people of the old earth in a way.

    Back to the time dilation thing. I can already tell you know nothing about the subject. So instead of doubling down on the talking point you are using, at least understand what time dilation even is, maybe?

    It's like you are using this phenomenon of time dilation for its name itself, with no concept of what its role in special relativity is lol. Again, light in vacuum takes distance/(speed of light) to reach us, from our frame of reference. This has been observed in practice all the time- see above post. This is, for example, how we can judge how far away a planet such as mars or venus is, by bouncing a signal off the planet, waiting for its return, and dividing the trip travel time by two. (Note we have methods entirely independent to this light speed method such as parallax that confirm these results). On a different note, we can accurately measure the speed of light in experiments. None of this is surprising.

    Time dilation is a result of time passing differently in a moving coordinate system with respect to you, and is strictly a result of the universal speed of light, and has been verified with experiments. The dilation factor, sometimes called the gamma factor, is known, and is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which itself can be deduced from the Pythagorean theorem. None of this has relevance to what you are talking about. We aren't talking about the time experienced by the photon carrying the EM radiation from a distant galaxy to us. The light that comes to us across billions of light years doesn't take 6,000-10,000 years from our perspective- it simply cannot, according to how modern physics understands light travels. The EM radiation arriving to us must be very old- billions of years.

    To emphasize the point once more: if radio waves from distant galaxies billions of light years away could reach us in 6,000 years because of time dilation (they can't).....then why, oh, why, does the radio signal from Voyager 1 take exactly how long you'd think it would based on distance from us, and not say, 10 seconds "because of time dilation". Why is your mythical time dilation component affecting the first case, but strangely not the second case?

    You can simply wave your hand and say God did everything like magic, but this then turns out to be a meaningless, untestable claim on your part (why even argue all the radioactive dating stuff above, going on about test validity- why not just say hey, the process itself is legit, but God interferes with the radiometric dating tests every time they are performed, creating the observed abundancies of isotopes?). If your answer for everything is just magic, then your position is just weak, and needs not be addressed. May as well say God created the universe 20 minutes ago, with everything intact- including the memories in your brain- this has the same scientific validity (none) that your other position has.
    Last edited by numberguy12; 09-17-2019 at 03:23 AM.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  5. #215
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    You have never actually raised a troubling question regarding the fact of evolution, if you'd like to do so now, go ahead. I didn't respond to your entire post because it's redundant, I'll let numberguy do it if he feels like it, it was addressed to him after all. I just wanted to point out the bit where creationists have to go with the Troll God model sometimes, because I find it entertaining.

    BTW accusing people of skipping over tough questions is amazingly hypocritical given the way you've ducked any kind of discussion after being repeatedly demolished on your outlandish claims given the moon, speed of light, radioactive decay etc.

    Again though, this is par for the course for creationists. I'm not disagreeing with you in writing for your sake, I can tell that you are too invested in your world view to be open to changing your mind or even engage in rational discussion. Rather I think it's worth doing this sometimes because someone is is in two minds about the whole thing can see which side of the debate has honest participants who can bring facts to the table and which side simply stubbornly repeats themselves despite being repeatedly debunked.

    Lastly, I like your bit about "10000000%", I can see your grip on basic maths hasn't yet improved.

    Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution:

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...i_vs_ev_28.htm
    Reply With Quote

  6. #216
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evid...common_descent

    A survey of some of the vast evidence we have of evolution from a common ancestor. Notice just the sheer size of the article, long by Wikipedia standards. Compare to the fragmentary, non-science based, and unsourced talking points in his link above. It's almost as if one list is much more convincing than the other.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  7. #217
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 32,303
    Rep Power: 81018
    Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution:

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...i_vs_ev_28.htm
    Lets take a look at what's happened in this thread with regards to your claims about the fact of evolution.

    I already debunked the 3 'strongest' pieces of 'evidence' that you could find i.e. lunar orbital decay, Earth's magnetic field and Plutonic volcanoes. You were unable to rebut my debunkings or provide evidence for your claims, so you just simply repeated your disproven claims several times and then gave up.

    The reason I challenged you to bring your best 3 is simple. Creationists tend not engage in honest discussion and instead use a variety of deceptive tactics in a rather embarrassing attempt to conceal the fundamental weakness of their position.

    One of these tactics is to provide links, without comment, to various creationist websites with pages such as '10 reasons evolution isn't real', '18 reasons evolution isn't real', '300 reasons evolution isn't real' and so on. So the honest debater might spend an hour or so debunking every item on one list and the dishonest creationist won't rebut them (because they can't) but will instead simply spam a bunch more links and sit back smugly as though they had personally proven something.

    In short, I am not going to act as your personal unpaid research assistant and waste my time debunking every frivolous, misinformed, third party claim that you choose to spam up this thread with.

    If you would care to continue the discussion you dropped about your 'best 3', using actual evidence and preferably correct mathematics when required, fine. If you want to present a different piece of evidence and do so in your own words, also fine.

    But I won't be arguing with every third party fraud you link to, with zero content of your own, because I've been down that road before. Do your own work and argue your own case.
    Last edited by Mr Beer; 09-16-2019 at 10:28 PM.
    I will read and review 100 books this year: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=176675491

    “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
    Reply With Quote

  8. #218
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by numberguy12 View Post
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evid...common_descent

    A survey of some of the vast evidence we have of evolution from a common ancestor. Notice just the sheer size of the article, long by Wikipedia standards. Compare to the fragmentary, non-science based, and unsourced talking points in his link above. It's almost as if one list is much more convincing than the other.
    Notice that all examples of evolution are within the species, not one evolving into another. Of course birds beaks change shape and size, no one argues that. Same with horses and breeds of horses or any other animal type. There are hundreds of breeds of horses, but they never become any other animal type. Same with cats and everything else.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #219
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    Notice that all examples of evolution are within the species, not one evolving into another. Of course birds beaks change shape and size, no one argues that. Same with horses and breeds of horses or any other animal type. There are hundreds of breeds of horses, but they never become any other animal type. Same with cats and everything else.
    Um...that is not the case at all with that list. Did you even read it? There are numerous examples of comparative physiology, anatomy, and biochemistry among entirely different species.......and many other avenues of evidence.

    It's like you decided "I'm not gonna read that article, but just throw my talking point into it, hoping it sticks".

    Lol your posts are kinda getting laughable now, man. I notice no response to the time dilation thing: Light from distant objects in space took millions to billions of years to reach us, nuff said.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  10. #220
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by numberguy12 View Post
    Um...that is not the case at all with that list. Did you even read it? There are numerous examples of comparative physiology, anatomy, and biochemistry among entirely different species.......and many other avenues of evidence.

    It's like you decided "I'm not gonna read that article, but just throw my talking point into it, hoping it sticks".

    Lol your posts are kinda getting laughable now, man. I notice no response to the time dilation thing: Light from distant objects in space took millions to billions of years to reach us, nuff said.
    No, with time dilation, a few minutes from the vantage point of the far away star can be billions of years in our vantage point. Time is not a constant and neither is the speed of light. The speed of light cannot be measured without a mirror and we don't really know if reflected light is as fast as light from a primary source such as a star. It could be that the light speed is infinite, but then slows down to 186,000 mps when reflected. We just don't know.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #221
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    No, with time dilation, a few minutes from the vantage point of the far away star can be billions of years in our vantage point. Time is not a constant and neither is the speed of light. The speed of light cannot be measured without a mirror and we don't really know if reflected light is as fast as light from a primary source such as a star. It could be that the light speed is infinite, but then slows down to 186,000 mps when reflected. We just don't know.
    None of this post makes sense. It is not much different than throwing random words together. Not worth a response.

    Distant galaxies = billions of light years away = billions of years into the past. Your position is wrecked by this basic fact.
    Last edited by numberguy12; 09-18-2019 at 10:10 PM.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  12. #222
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Btw, Einstein thought the speed of light is constant (based on prior, proven experiments). He based his entire theory of special relativity on this fact. Paddington thinks the speed of light is not constant.

    Take your pick:

    -literally Albert Einstein

    -Paddington random poster on the misc.

    I know this is a tough one, but choose wisely.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  13. #223
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 32,303
    Rep Power: 81018
    Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Should be working but LOL-ing instead over the Albert Einstein/Paddington dilemma.
    I will read and review 100 books this year: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=176675491

    “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
    Reply With Quote

  14. #224
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by numberguy12 View Post
    None of this post makes sense. It is not much different than throwing random words together. Not worth a response.

    Distant galaxies = billions of light years away = billions of years into the past. Your position is wrecked by this basic fact.
    It just goes to show that you haven't a clue about relativity.
    Reply With Quote

  15. #225
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    It just goes to show that you haven't a clue about relativity.
    Explain? Everything you have said concerning special relativity so far is blatantly false lol. You even literally said that the speed of light [in vacuum presumably] is not constant. You managed to get the most important fact of the entire theory incorrect, showing you have no clue what any of this means. The speed of light in vacuum, c, is an absolute constant of nature. It simply does not vary, not matter the frame of reference . If someone is traveling 25,000 mph with respect to you, and shines a light in front of them, that light still travels at the speed of light, c. Not 25,000 mph + c. The speed of light does not change lol, this has been demonstrated with experiment.

    You are disagreeing with the founder of the theory, Einstein. Does he not "have a clue about relativity"? what are you even saying?
    Last edited by numberguy12; 09-21-2019 at 06:43 AM.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  16. #226
    I am the last line® Harbinger's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Posts: 21,707
    Rep Power: 34070
    Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Harbinger has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Harbinger is offline
    Originally Posted by numberguy12 View Post
    Btw, Einstein thought the speed of light is constant (based on prior, proven experiments). He based his entire theory of special relativity on this fact. Paddington thinks the speed of light is not constant.

    Take your pick:

    -literally Albert Einstein

    -Paddington random poster on the misc.

    I know this is a tough one, but choose wisely.
    He could be a super mega genius, you don't know.
    If you're ever afforded the opportunity to be a marine, always be a Marine.
    BBO
    Roll Tide Roll
    Reply With Quote

  17. #227
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by numberguy12 View Post
    Explain? Everything you have said concerning special relativity so far is blatantly false lol. You even literally said that the speed of light [in vacuum presumably] is not constant. You managed to get the most important fact of the entire theory incorrect, showing you have no clue what any of this means. The speed of light in vacuum, c, is an absolute constant of nature. It simply does not vary, not matter the frame of reference . If someone is traveling 25,000 mph with respect to you, and shines a light in front of them, that light still travels at the speed of light, c. Not 25,000 mph + c. The speed of light does not change lol, this has been demonstrated with experiment.

    You are disagreeing with the founder of the theory, Einstein. Does he not "have a clue about relativity"? what are you even saying?
    The speed of light is not a constant. It changes, slows down when going through glass, it changes in a vaccum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

    Theory of Relativity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

    Special relativity
    Main article: Special relativity
    Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

    The laws of physics are the same for all observers in any inertial frame of reference relative to one another (principle of relativity).
    The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source.
    The resultant theory copes with experiment better than classical mechanics. For instance, postulate 2 explains the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment. Moreover, the theory has many surprising and counterintuitive consequences. Some of these are:

    Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
    Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
    Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
    Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
    The effect of Gravity can only travel through space at the speed of light, not faster or instantaneously.
    Mass–energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.
    Relativistic mass, idea used by some researchers.[9]
    Reply With Quote

  18. #228
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    The speed of light is not a constant. It changes, slows down when going through glass, it changes in a vaccum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

    Theory of Relativity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

    Special relativity
    Main article: Special relativity
    Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

    The laws of physics are the same for all observers in any inertial frame of reference relative to one another (principle of relativity).
    The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source.
    The resultant theory copes with experiment better than classical mechanics. For instance, postulate 2 explains the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment. Moreover, the theory has many surprising and counterintuitive consequences. Some of these are:

    Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
    Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
    Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
    Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
    The effect of Gravity can only travel through space at the speed of light, not faster or instantaneously.
    Mass–energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.
    Relativistic mass, idea used by some researchers.[9]
    The above was not about light traveling through water, glass, etc- we are talking about the speed of light in vacuum, or at least near vacuum (you specifically went out of your way to say the speed of light is not constant, which is utterly misunderstanding special relativity). From the very source you are listing:

    "The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source."

    Also, pasting texts from Wikipedia doesn't mean you have a grasp on any of this whatsoever. Your use of time dilation to explain the obvious fact of light from distant galaxies being from the past is simply not correct. This is not what time dilation means. You are attempting to use it just because of the name of the principle itself, without an understanding of what it means. See above post for time dilation and what it means, I'm not going to repeat things.

    Bottom line: Light from distant galaxies millions to billions of light years away simply could not have taken 10,000 years or less to reach us. Your stance must be false from this basic fact alone.

    Edit: I see the link in your post is mentioning Einstein's take on variable speed limit of light. I don't have the time right now to look into exactly what was meant by this but a preliminary glance shows: he is not talking about the speed of light in relation to special relativity, but rather in a gravitational field- that is, in relation to general relativity* . There is a section at the end of your article that details various criticisms, and notes that VSL theories are outside of mainstream cosmology.

    The problem with VSL theories is that the experiments performed, starting with Michelson Morley, seem to strongly suggest c the speed of light is constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_...speed_of_light. The Michelson Morley experiment itself btw, has to be up there on the list of top experiments performed in the history of science.


    Whatever the case, in the system of units used today, the speed of light in vacuum is defined to be constant. So I can assure you it is constant in this sense lol. The SI meter is now defined as the length light travels in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second, no longer by say, some platinum bar kept in Paris. So really you aren't talking about a variable speed of light, but rather a variable meter or second.

    None of this of course has any implications about the absurdity of the young earth creationist model in regards to modern astronomy and cosmology.

    *: this appears to be a rather difficult question because general relativity is....not a simple concept. Intuitively, it makes sense that a gravitational field can slow light (think a strong gravitational well like a black hole, and the slowed light at an event horizon to distant observer). In any case, not that this is applicable to the above, this would all be slowing of light (so would actually be hurting your hypothesis even more). No one is saying that light from a distant galaxy is passing close to black hole or whatever to reach us anyway. Here is a little relevant info:

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...tational-field

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-light-travels
    Last edited by numberguy12; 09-22-2019 at 03:17 AM.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  19. #229
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 32,303
    Rep Power: 81018
    Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    But what if interstellar vacuum is actually photonic crystals? Checkmate atheists.
    I will read and review 100 books this year: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=176675491

    “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
    Reply With Quote

  20. #230
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    But what if interstellar vacuum is actually photonic crystals? Checkmate atheists.
    Essentially what their arguments boil down to. Lol
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  21. #231
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    The point is that the speed of light is relative and it can also be slowed down and manipulated, therefore, it is not a constant:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...-west-30944584
    Reply With Quote

  22. #232
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 32,303
    Rep Power: 81018
    Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Speed of light in a vacuum is constant though and the stuff between us and stars is vacuum rather than "a software controlled liquid crystal device", so you're wrong.
    I will read and review 100 books this year: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=176675491

    “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
    Reply With Quote

  23. #233
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    The point is that the speed of light is relative and it can also be slowed down and manipulated, therefore, it is not a constant:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...-west-30944584
    Think about what you are saying. Do you really think there is a chain of scientists between us, and say, Andromeda, out there in space manipulating the speed of light? lol. This has absolutely no relevance to the speed of electromagnetic radiation reaching us from Andromeda. I will ask again, how come the radio signals from voyager 1 or Mars rovers take exactly how long we'd think they would take based on their distatnce and the known speed of light in vacuum? Why are you not answering this question?

    The silly thing about the article you are posting is scientists have found a way to slow the speed of a photon (the carrier of light) artificially. Not that that is related to light from distant galaxies at all, but even if it was somehow, then the light would have even taken longer to reach us with a slower speed. So instead of 2 million year old light from Andromeda, it's now like 3 million year old light or 50 million year old light or whatever. This is hurting your case even more! (remember, it's not relevant at all to the light from Andromeda, but for the sake of argument).

    No, the speed of light in vacuum is not relative, you are utterly misunderstanding relativity if you are claiming this.

    To repeat:

    Bottom line: Light from distant galaxies millions to billions of light years away simply could not have taken 10,000 years or less to reach us. Your stance must be false from this basic fact alone.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  24. #234
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    Speed of light in a vacuum is constant though and the stuff between us and stars is vacuum rather than "a software controlled liquid crystal device", so you're wrong.
    It is manipulated by gravity of the innumerable objects in between, it also passed through dust, rocks and other objects along the way.
    Reply With Quote

  25. #235
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 32,303
    Rep Power: 81018
    Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) Mr Beer has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    It is manipulated by gravity of the innumerable objects in between, it also passed through dust, rocks and other objects along the way.
    Leaving aside your bizarre claim that light 'passes through rocks', are you contending that interstellar light has been slowed down from c by interaction with space debris?
    Last edited by Mr Beer; 09-22-2019 at 05:18 PM.
    I will read and review 100 books this year: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=176675491

    “Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
    Reply With Quote

  26. #236
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    It is manipulated by gravity of the innumerable objects in between, it also passed through dust, rocks and other objects along the way.
    Why does your explanation keep changing? First it was time dilation, then it was VSL, then it was scientists artificially slowing photons, and now it's dust and rocks in space. All of this is pure nonsense in relation to the question at hand (can light from galaxies billions of light years away reach us in < 10,000 years?). The answer to this question is a flat: no.

    Space is near vacuum lol. In any case, you are getting at refractive index, and increasing the density (dust, rocks, whatever that means) of a medium wouldnt increase the speed of a photon beyond the speed of light in a vacuum. Can you not see that to explain these galaxies billions of light years away in your false 10,000 yr old universe, you need a speed of light much greater than what it is, not less?

    Not that this is relevant, because we are talking about essentially empty space, but refractive indexes are generally > 1. There are some rare cases of a refractive index < 1 (such as x-ray radiation in water), that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but even this just has implications for phase velocity- this has nothing to do with, for example, the speed of information transfer being faster than light.

    Einstein's theory of relativity, which you are essentially disagreeing with here, says that things like information or light signals do not travel faster than c, the speed of light in vacuum, in relation to you. Seeing a distant galaxy millions of light years away is information. That couldn't have taken < 10,000 years to reach you, according to relativity. The problem with your stance is........both special and general relativity are well-tested scientific theories, with actual real world results agreeing with their conclusions quite well.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  27. #237
    Devil's advocate GreatOldOne's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2013
    Posts: 31,314
    Rep Power: 61632
    GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) GreatOldOne has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    GreatOldOne is offline
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    Nope. I always said that there were several explanations, but you obviously didn't read carefully enough. I am not backed into a corner. I think the time dilation makes the most sense. And I notice that you don't want to address my very troubling questions for evolutionists.

    The only lie is evolution. The Bible is 10000000% true and God is 10000000% real.
    It looks like evolution is real bud.

    Is that really a big problem for Christianity?

    Nobody really cares about the details.

    Srs.

    Why do Adam and Eve need to be real people?

    Aside from Pope still says...
    (oO) That is not dead which can eternal lie,
    /||\ And with strange aeons even death may die.
    Deamon flautists: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=164323341

    Happy days to you and yours.
    Reply With Quote

  28. #238
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by GreatOldOne View Post
    It looks like evolution is real bud.

    Is that really a big problem for Christianity?

    Nobody really cares about the details.

    Srs.

    Why do Adam and Eve need to be real people?

    Aside from Pope still says...
    among other things, it raises problems with the Christian idea of original sin. Also with Adam and Eve not existing, it makes sense to start to question the rest of the Bible.

    People like Paddington "need" every single claim in the Bible, every last historical detail, to be true....because the Bible for them is God inspired and the word of God. Of course it is a hopeless exercise to defend this inerrancy, as there are a ridiculous number of inconsistencies with science, history, and even other biblical passages within the Bible.
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

  29. #239
    Registered User Paddington's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2012
    Age: 48
    Posts: 1,843
    Rep Power: 4529
    Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) Paddington is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    Paddington is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    Leaving aside your bizarre claim that light 'passes through rocks', are you contending that interstellar light has been slowed down from c by interaction with space debris?
    Maybe. It's been slowed down by passing through certain types of mediums. Glass slows down and bends light.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0123144158.htm
    Reply With Quote

  30. #240
    Registered User numberguy12's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2017
    Posts: 3,057
    Rep Power: 21971
    numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) numberguy12 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    numberguy12 is online now
    Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    Maybe. It's been slowed down by passing through certain types of mediums. Glass slows down and bends light.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0123144158.htm
    What don't you understand? You want the opposite of slowing down for your wrong theory. Light slowed down would mean those distant objects are even further into the past. Are you just dishonestly ignoring this point entirely?
    ∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑ : <Smackcity edition>

    ♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts