nebula Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Manipulative Speech? How so? It is subtle. But the article is written such to sway belief rather than to let the reader figure things out for themselves. Unfortunately, we are so used to "news" articles with propaganda undertones that we don't notice these things are there. Believe it or not, I am willing to have an open mind, but I part of being open-minded is to be a critical analyzer. It helps when the one trying to convince me to change my beliefs respects that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Manipulative Speech? How so? It is subtle. But the article is written such to sway belief rather than to let the reader figure things out for themselves. Unfortunately, we are so used to "news" articles with propaganda undertones that we don't notice these things are there. Believe it or not, I am willing to have an open mind, but I part of being open-minded is to be a critical analyzer. It helps when the one trying to convince me to change my beliefs respects that. 99.9% of the articles and books I read are trying to sway me.... or maybe I'm just paranoid LOL. Even a recipe is attempting it's little tricks, most likely to get me to make the recipe. My goal of that article was not intended to try to sway anyone...it was interesting to see the Gate Keeper stone wall go up with academia. As I said though, when the rubber meets the road, it might be interesting/thought provoking but it's mere Speculation @ the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 Spock is completely right with the use of light years. It as a unit of distance only makes sense when we consider it is how long it takes for a photon to travel through a vacuum (which space approximates) in a year. Hence if we can see an object that is 10,000,000 light years away it is from 10,000,000 years ago (as nebula explained already...).No, Spock is completely wrong. Good alpha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2014 Spock is completely right with the use of light years. It as a unit of distance only makes sense when we consider it is how long it takes for a photon to travel through a vacuum (which space approximates) in a year. Hence if we can see an object that is 10,000,000 light years away it is from 10,000,000 years ago (as nebula explained already...). No, Spock is completely wrong. Good alpha. ☝. bad Shiloh Alpha makes me feel much better than Shiloh. lol well good. Keep in mind though, for distant clusters of galaxies or something you have to take into account the expansion of the universe also. If that was shiloh's point I'm impressed, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Otherwise, ct=d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted January 24, 2014 From your source: http://csharp.com/starlight.html "The claim that God created the universe with an appearance of age with light already in transit to the earth from distant stars cannot technically be proved or disproved, so it is not scientific." Neither is anything he postulates! It's in the past...you can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past. So Everything, from whatever camp on this issue, is not "scientific". It's UNFALSIFIABLE; Hence, UNPROVABLE!! Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions. Setterfield @ least has measurements from the past. Can he Prove the extrapolations......NOPE!! "Inconceivable!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 24, 2014 From your source: http://csharp.com/starlight.html "The claim that God created the universe with an appearance of age with light already in transit to the earth from distant stars cannot technically be proved or disproved, so it is not scientific." Neither is anything he postulates! It's in the past...you can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past. So Everything, from whatever camp on this issue, is not "scientific". It's UNFALSIFIABLE; Hence, UNPROVABLE!! Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions. Setterfield @ least has measurements from the past. Can he Prove the extrapolations......NOPE!! "Inconceivable!" What is... "Inconceivable!" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwark Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/24/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2014 Here is how I answer this and all the other objections that are based on arguments of "Natural Law" i.e. light. God, by definition, is not constrained by "Natural Law", when he created Adam he did not created a one day old infant, but a walking, talking, blood oxygenated, synopitic link firing person. God can create anything at any point along it's perceived linear time scale. God did not have to start with "light" starting at its perceived distall local. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted January 24, 2014 From your source: http://csharp.com/starlight.html "The claim that God created the universe with an appearance of age with light already in transit to the earth from distant stars cannot technically be proved or disproved, so it is not scientific." Neither is anything he postulates! It's in the past...you can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past. So Everything, from whatever camp on this issue, is not "scientific". It's UNFALSIFIABLE; Hence, UNPROVABLE!! Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions. Setterfield @ least has measurements from the past. Can he Prove the extrapolations......NOPE!! "Inconceivable!" What is... "Inconceivable!" ? "Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions." That anyone would doubt the peer reviewed affirmations of any and all scientific observations of the created world. The prickly little problem these scientists have always had, is that, they have to see to believe, and they can't see YHWH. And, what's worse, they are so confident in their knowledge of the created world, that they mock and scorn anyone that believes there's more to creation than what the eyes, microscopes, telescopes can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted January 24, 2014 When YHWH created everything, He set aside 6 days to do His work and rested on the 7th. My guess, since He can create anything, then He is more than capable of setting a timeframe that falls within His abilities. The first day, He began working and working and working, once He completed everything He wanted to do, He called it a day. The next day, the same. He continued this process for 6 days. Each day completing His work for that day. Finally, the day came where there was nothing else left to create, so He rested. To YHWH, it was only 6 days of work, but for us, we can't fathom what a day for Him is like. We can only measure a day by how fast the earth is spinning, because, the only frame of reference we have is the Sun. The earth spins faster, the earth spins slower, our days get longer, our days get shorter, if the path the Earth takes to orbit the sun changes, our years get longer or shorter. We didn't create time, we can only observe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 24, 2014 From your source: http://csharp.com/starlight.html "The claim that God created the universe with an appearance of age with light already in transit to the earth from distant stars cannot technically be proved or disproved, so it is not scientific." Neither is anything he postulates! It's in the past...you can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past. So Everything, from whatever camp on this issue, is not "scientific". It's UNFALSIFIABLE; Hence, UNPROVABLE!! Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions. Setterfield @ least has measurements from the past. Can he Prove the extrapolations......NOPE!! "Inconceivable!" What is... "Inconceivable!" ? "Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions." That anyone would doubt the peer reviewed affirmations of any and all scientific observations of the created world. The prickly little problem these scientists have always had, is that, they have to see to believe, and they can't see YHWH. And, what's worse, they are so confident in their knowledge of the created world, that they mock and scorn anyone that believes there's more to creation than what the eyes, microscopes, telescopes can see. Yes. And the term "Science" or "Scientists" along with "Scientific Evidence"...... 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence By definition, Science is Limited to the 7 Steps of the "Scientific Method". If you can't put that (Whatever) into that method....then it's not Science. It has to satisfy these Tenets: Observable Measurable/Testable Repeatable Falsifiable The problem as I see it is..... a lack of differentiating between: "Scientific Claims" and Claims that Scientists make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts