Show me the quote where I did this?
Here we go again. Every thread, most every one of you posts, is the same old same old.
Children have a natural wonder and curiosity about nature. When did you lose yours? All of your questions concerning science are just a pretext to proselytize your dogma. It all comes down to I believe it and that settles it. Prove me wrong. If a person is self satisfied they have all the answers, there are no questions, just challenges to issue. Of course, no one will ever prove you do not believe it, for sure you do. All in all, it is just silly.
3 Likes
Having a wonder about creation does not mean imagining schemes that deny it. Not blindly accepting fundamental assumptions used by origin sciences is a good thing. Truth is a good thing. It is important to see where science went off the rails. Seeking truth involves weighing various claims to see if they can stand up or not. Nothing to cry about.
You imagine away evidence, you do not even accept middle school trigonometry. There are literal light echoes where we directly observe the time delay it takes for light from a nova to hit the surrounding gas in deep space, but what is the point if you do not accept math and evidence?
1 Like
So you can’t prove or even support that time exists as we know it in deep space etc. OK. /win
On the same basis you can’t prove the sun rises in the east.
1 Like
You say the rings of SN 1987A “grew (moved) at a certain rate in time.”
Did the rings themselves change at SN 1987A—yes or no?
2 Likes
No, not the same basis at all. We can see the sunrise. We can’t see time, especially in the distant unknown universe. Don’t try to mask your inability to be able to support the fundamental pillars of your faith in so called science.
"The latest data from these powerful telescopes indicate that SN 1987A has passed an important threshold. The supernova shock wave is moving
--“From 1999 until 2013, Chandra data showed an expanding ring of X-ray emission that had been steadily getting brighter”
beyond the dense ring of gas.."
The rings themselves I think they claim were already there, but that is another discussion thread. There is movement claimed as I quoted above here’ Over three years of our time apparently. I guess it just made the rings brighter.
So you can’t prove the sun rises in the east. Knew it! All you have is belief. Victory lap. Game, Set, Match baby.
2 Likes
I’m tempted to just tell you to prove you didn’t, but really the whole point of this thread seems to be for you to insist on that.
2 Likes
You’re right that the dense gas ring itself was already there. So let me correct my question. Your Chandra source says that the supernova’s blast wave was moving outward through that ring and eventually moved beyond it.
Did the blast wave itself move at SN 1987A—yes or no?
1 Like
So you posit that there is some inability to prove the things observed daily for thousands of years (sunrise) and therefore science can keep on using actual beliefs with no evidence whatsoever to make anti bible claims. OK. This thread is more for people who have at least some small concern for truth and reality. Thanks for playing. probably would have been better to admit you didn’t know.
Hold on, did you say people have been around for thousands of years? Were you there? Prove it.
4 Likes
Interesting. I interpret the passage of scripture around Acts 14:17 differently than you:
Yet he has not left himself without testimony. He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; …
I would also note that if snow didn’t happen in the distant past, there would be fewer than 6000 (or whatever) seasonal changes in the ice cores, not vastly more.
The Peace of Christ be with you.
2 Likes
I understand how some people would and should be embarrassed when the old age claims of science about the universe are so handily defeated. A denial and grasping at straws to try and wave reality away, just because the beliefs of science were exposed as faith based. Sorry, you would need to make a case for time as we know it existing in all the universe. You can’t…so we see this. Ho hum.
…says the person who rejects evidence and geometry, let alone somehow bringing child sacrifice into discussion of observing nature.
I’m reminded of this verse by Piet Hien
“As Pastor X steps out of bed
he slips a neat disguise on:
that halo round his priestly head
is really his horizon.”
5 Likes
Quick questions before going further, do you believe time began and if so, when? Would you say God said “let there be light” before or after time began?
It all comes down to whether you consider Scriptures to be reliable about the beginning of Time, I guess.
“in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” - Titus 1.v2
1 Like
OK, so you claim time is the same in the distant universe…because..? Let’s see you strut your stuff
What, exactly, is your response to light echoes, and gravitationally lensed supernovae which appear at specific different times depending on path, as scientists predict?
1 Like