Guest Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Buddy, it is you who have no idea "what the words "prove" and "proof" mean". Hence your blind faith in evolution. And hence your inability to give me an actual size for your universe. ~ Is Buddy And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 2 Timothy 2:24 Just Another Proof Word To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. Titus 3:2 For The Beloved A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:34-35 ~ It's Simply Jesus The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: John 3:35-36(ab) Or The Rights To Perdition and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36(b-c ) Dear Brother Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 19, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) Neil, Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. I am not a scientist (though some do call my line of work "data scientist"). I currently work as a statistician. Cosmology is more of a hobby for me. Would love to learn how you have come to the conclusions that you have. It would also be helpful if you were to expound a bit more on the things that you put forth. You are smart enough to know that your point of view is outside the mainstream so to just put it forth as doctrine and never support it does not really help those of us trying to understand what you are saying. Take for example, perhaps you could explain how the two words "accelerated expansion" disprove the big bang theory. Edited August 19, 2013 by GoldenEagle <<< From the ToS... We have no way to verify ones education or right to bear such title. Here on the boards, we are all on equal standing. >>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_ Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 20, 2013 OneLight and GoldenEagle, thank you for trying to bring some sense here. It apparently worked. FresnoJoe, I think God loves you so much… I'm sure God created mortality for a good reason God created mortality? I find that strange. What’s certain from my Bible is that God didn’t intend for mankind (or animals etc.) to die. That was (wo)man’s choosing. Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. I agree - and apologize. Would love to learn how you have come to the conclusions that you have. What would you like to know? Take for example, perhaps you could explain how the two words "accelerated expansion" disprove the big bang theory. google “the most profound problem”. Cosmology is more of a hobby for me. Congrats. I have personally read tens of cosmologies. Some starting out from one point alone. For example, why doesn’t the night sky blind us. Having said that, I found geocentrism to be the most consistent one. By far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Why would the night sky blind us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_ Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 20, 2013 Why would the night sky blind us? You said cosmology is a hobby for you. Don’t you know your own hobby? Anyway, read for example this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html By the way, almost all that’s on that page is WRONG (that is, according to mainstream!). I especially liked number 5, which clearly says goodbye to a billions of years old universe (which he advocates only a few paragraphs below that!). Another extremely funny (and WRONG) thing: “We live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach us.” That’s going against the big bang universe at the highest degree, since the radius of the formal observable universe is more than 3 times that figure. This fellow really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But that’s not actually a surprise, since he’s a big bang supporter… I think I gave enough evidence for anyone to steer clear of University of California… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Why would the night sky blind us? You said cosmology is a hobby for you. Don’t you know your own hobby? you have this disconcerting habit of not answering questions, instead you snipe back in a passive aggressive manner. It has been my experience over the last decade of being on internet forum most of the people that do this really have no clue what they are talking about. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and hope you can justify that faith in you. So, I will ask you again and change it up a bit...in your own words, why would the night sky blind us? I look forward to reading your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hall7 Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,385 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 491 Days Won: 5 Joined: 04/25/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted August 20, 2013 I'm sure God created mortality for a good reason God created mortality? I find that strange. What’s certain from my Bible is that God didn’t intend for mankind (or animals etc.) to die. That was (wo)man’s choosing. Genesis 3 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” God created a fruit that would make us mortal therefore wouldn't you agree that He did create mortality? Although we did bring it upon ourselves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Why would the night sky blind us? You said cosmology is a hobby for you. Don’t you know your own hobby? you have this disconcerting habit of not answering questions, instead you snipe back in a passive aggressive manner. It has been my experience over the last decade of being on internet forum most of the people that do this really have no clue what they are talking about. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and hope you can justify that faith in you. So, I will ask you again and change it up a bit...in your own words, why would the night sky blind us? I look forward to reading your answer. I agree. That paper in no way advocates a young universe the way YEC's see it. By "young" the author is suggesting it is millions of years old, not billions...either way his theory leaves out a literal account in Genesis. Blinded by a night sky does not prove evoltution or creation, it seemingly implies that some people have too much time on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 20, 2013 The night sky blinding us is sort of a thought experiment that demonstrates that the universe cannot be both infinitely old and infinitely large. If it was, than the night sky would blind us as it would look like we were on the surface of a star. It would also make the universe uninhabitable as we know it, but the classical though experiment uses the night sky blinding us. That said, I have no idea where he is going with it. thanks D-9. I understand what he was getting at, honestly I just wanted to know if he knew what he was getting at. So far he has not given us much to go on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsukinoRei Posted August 21, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 438 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/02/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 21, 2013 Distant star light remains a problem for both camps, that is young universe/old universe, though it seems to be a bigger problem for the old universe. This is one theory, of many... Good grief. Distant star light does not remain a problem for both camps. It only remains a problem for young earth 'theorists' who begin with the assumption that the universe must conform to the idea of a 6000 yr old earth. He's twisting the science horrifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts