Posts by prologos

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

prologos

shepherdless, the basic premise that the OP makes in the linked article, is, that the speed of light in a vacuum is indeed ~ 300 000/sec, unaffected by one's own speed, but that the early universe was anything but a void. ( some Helium is believed to have originated that early). For example the energy carried by photons out of the active core of the Sun is estimated to be 20 000 years old, because going through the dense plasma, but took only ~ 500 seconds to reach us from the "surface". By the time stars appeared in the early universe, the path was clear for light to reach it's "in vacuum"speed . and surely those working in the sciences that deal with the developing universe have factored all this into their models., like the epoch of inflation.

Trying to prove the bible to be right by asserting science is wrong, puts Perry's proposition in peril.

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

prologos

evolution i could be the tool of an able designer that does not have to continue tinkering himself.

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

prologos

while science limits itself to research only the searchable, the "all" there is, it will inevitable touch the realm of the beyond, the energy content of the nothing or void, the pre-beginning time, the idea of multi-and baby universes beyond the reach of of our present instrumentation. so it is not all materialism in the all.

On the ueber- light speed wheel, proposed by juandefiero:, the signal from a panning beam of a pulsar reaches an apparent hyper "c" velocity, but that is just like a shadow, not transporting a signal along, between the objects that it illuminates in sequence.

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

prologos

Finkelstein.: The reason creationists have to be intellectually dishonest is not a hypothesis its an observable conclusion

well, talking about the universe, it certainly can be observed, the question is, did it create itself, it's laws, energy, matter, it's expanding into the future, or was there an unobservable originator.? who is not a published author ?

Perry's link alleges that the bible's 6-7 days new Earth scenario holds because "c" is variable.

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

prologos

Perry: "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years. and the reverse. and . "--with him there is no turning of the shadow--" in other words the creator does not move through time as we do. with 50 000 verses in the bible there is a high probability that there are some lucky hits.

about time" acceleration also effects how movement through time is perceived by the observer, and the article does not mention how "inflation" in the early universe would appear to us. I was referring to the classic Gen. 1:1, not chapter 4 and remember, the bible does not contradict itself, right??

Bsw: The universal expansion is accelerating, so according to Humphreys' theory and "gravity = acceleration," the universe would be even older than it looks to us, not just 6 days.

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

prologos

The articles underpinning is that the bible is inspired and infallible, Humphreys' new cosmology is shaped to prove that, using the work of scientists committed to the strict materialism concept. An interesting feature in the text was the debunking of the idea, that the passage "--created light--" meant that "god" put the picture of the past we see today into the light that we see now.

The starlight we are interested in is the Sun's and it is 8 minutes old when we see it, and took millions of years to get out of the sun's center fuser, but the sun and Earth did not exist in the young universe, near it's beginning, the universe is 4 times older than the Sun, so, when the bible says "--in the beginning god created Heaven and the Earth--" the basic premise is already proven wrong. That is so whether "c" varies over time or not, or a "time stands still"- zone existed around the big bang white hole.

20

My First CLAM Meeting

by The Searcher in

i carried out my monthly "cover" visit to the k.h.

tonight.

as previously discussed on this forum, the clam meeting is just a rehashed, recycled, reshuffled, & rebranded ministry school and service meeting.

prologos

As just an observer, the truncated, big audience discussion with the tired audience of the "imitation of their faith" book, has not fully sunk in yet. The topic at the end was about the sexual corruption of the OT organisation at the highest level. Come to think of it, if truth would be known, on the page 63 image, given the facts, There is a great likelihood, that Eli was talking to his grandson. knowing that his mother was a frequent attendee at the temple compound. Interesting new admission by wt on page 66 par 29 too: "--'Jehovah' let not one of Samuel's prophecies fail--" which can not be said for the wt writers.

20

My First CLAM Meeting

by The Searcher in

i carried out my monthly "cover" visit to the k.h.

tonight.

as previously discussed on this forum, the clam meeting is just a rehashed, recycled, reshuffled, & rebranded ministry school and service meeting.

prologos

By the time the last part came down, -- the "imitation faith book" study, every body is spent, already asleep. This question and answer session, was at least 50 % silence, molasses dragging on to the closing song.

44

Proof the earth can be flat

by slimboyfat in

"our perception of reality has more to do with what is going on in here (our brain) than what's going on out there (in the world).".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03g221y.

is it a dark square or a light square?

prologos

over a small distance one could be fooled to perceive the Earth as flat. The Eratosthenes shadow measurement at Summer solistes in Egypt's wells that gave a close fit for the Spherical Earth diameter, if done on a flat Earth, would also give a [false] value of the the sun moving over a flat earth, because giving different angles but at different times. Even from a house 100 meters above sea level, it is clear the surface curves away past the horizon ~ 35 km away.

Take many looks, to see, to form your perception of reality. To prevent you from seeing far, wt wants you to keep the blinkers on. read only the material from Awake Uni. Many bible passages only make sense if you still live on a flat earth, Satan"s post millennium, Jesus' kingdom temptations,---

71

What went through your mind when you saw this Picture?

by John Aquila in

.

prologos

But all is not lost, look at the kids in the picture, couples still coupling after 1000 years of perfect sex. but where are the four corners of the new earth?