Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I think the correct statement is,
"You will not support a physical past beyond that time."

OK, fair enough, you will not do that, and that is what all, I repeat all old ages are based on! And it can't be supported! Astounding.

Lets say I go outside and throw a ball in the air and watch it fall back down.
I do this everyday for a week and each time the ball falls down.

I think the best assumption would be that the ball is has and always will fall down.

If there are situations that this would not be the case, clear evidence needs to be produced.

I don't see how the above situation is any different.

All you have for evidence is your interpretation of the bible.

You who beleived that the snake was in a tree and gave Eve an apple, you who beleive that Jesus went to hell.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:..
Lets say I go outside and throw a ball in the air and watch it fall back down.
I do this everyday for a week and each time the ball falls down.

I think the best assumption would be that the ball is has and always will fall down.

Not for eternity. A ball will not last forever. Not in the flood, there was water everywhere, you would drown. If we mean in the timeframe I outlined, it is a reasonable assumption, barring the unforeseen. Like an asteroid or meteor hitting to close, nuclear war, hurricane, etc. Throwing up a ball is not proof that there will be no new heavens and these ones pass away! Neither is it proof that the universe was only physical before the split.

All you have for evidence is your interpretation of the bible.

Which matches the evidence we have in science, the fossil record, etc, at least as good as it matches your belief.

You who believed that the snake was in a tree and gave Eve an apple, you who believe that Jesus went to hell.

Apple? Also it was not a snake in the tree, but a different creature. A snake is a modern relative. Jesus did preach to the spirits under the earth in prison, yes, a matter of documented evidence. What about it?

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:..
Lets say I go outside and throw a ball in the air and watch it fall back down.
I do this everyday for a week and each time the ball falls down.

I think the best assumption would be that the ball is has and always will fall down.

Not for eternity. A ball will not last forever.

Replace the ball then, a new ball everyday. If you are going to counter with this you just don't get it.

dad wrote:Not in the flood, there was water everywhere, you would drown.

Are you saying gravity does not exist underwater?

dad wrote:If we mean in the timeframe I outlined, it is a reasonable assumption, barring the unforeseen. Like an asteroid or meteor hitting to close, nuclear war, hurricane, etc. Throwing up a ball is not proof that there will be no new heavens and these ones pass away!

No you need proof for those things you mentioned, in the realm of science.

dad wrote:Neither is it proof that the universe was only physical before the split.

This assumes a split occurred.

dad wrote:

All you have for evidence is your interpretation of the bible.

Which matches the evidence we have in science, the fossil record, etc, at least as good as it matches your belief.

Funny, I can touch a fossil, I have yet to touch the split.

dad wrote:

You who believed that the snake was in a tree and gave Eve an apple, you who believe that Jesus went to hell.

Apple? Also it was not a snake in the tree, but a different creature.

No it was a serpent, and it was NOT in a tree.

dad wrote:A snake is a modern relative.

Is this from hyper-evolution??

dad wrote:Jesus did preach to the spirits under the earth in prison, yes, a matter of documented evidence. What about it?

Care to share?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:..
Not for eternity. A ball will not last forever.Replace the ball then, a new ball everyday. If you are going to counter with this you just don't get it.

The ball would go up and down as long as there is gravity, what about it?

Are you saying gravity does not exist underwater?

No, I'm saying you don't. Therfore you wouldn't be throwing balls!

No you need proof for those things you mentioned, in the realm of science.

You need proof someone could throw a ball up beyond from the split, to the new heavens!

This assumes a split occurred.

You assume it didn't, no science can help there.

Funny, I can touch a fossil, I have yet to touch the split.

So can I, and it is evidence of a migration from Eden not that long ago. Only in your mind can it be interpreted differently. I can't touch Granny, or the primordal pond, where are they? I don't observe them. How about the singularity creator spoeck, touched that baby lately? No, you are dreaming!

Is this from hyper-evolution??

Yes

Care to share?

Never heard that? Yes, He went to the heart of the earth after He died and preached to the spirits in prison.

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:..
Not for eternity. A ball will not last forever.Replace the ball then, a new ball everyday. If you are going to counter with this you just don't get it.

The ball would go up and down as long as there is gravity, what about it?

Apparently gravity existed before the split but radioactive decay did not?

dad wrote:

Are you saying gravity does not exist underwater?

No, I'm saying you don't. Therfore you wouldn't be throwing balls!

I am beginning to understand how concrete your thinking is.

dad wrote:

No you need proof for those things you mentioned, in the realm of science.

You need proof someone could throw a ball up beyond from the split, to the new heavens!

dad wrote:

This assumes a split occurred.

You assume it didn't, no science can help there.

That's the point, your supposed to assume nothing.

dad wrote:

Funny, I can touch a fossil, I have yet to touch the split.

So can I, and it is evidence of a migration from Eden not that long ago. Only in your mind can it be interpreted differently. I can't touch Granny, or the primordal pond, where are they? I don't observe them. How about the singularity creator spoeck, touched that baby lately?

So everything was always like the way it is now?

dad wrote:No, you are dreaming!

If you say so.

dad wrote:

Is this from hyper-evolution??

Yes

Care to share?

Never heard that? Yes, He went to the heart of the earth after He died and preached to the spirits in prison.

Sources? Please post a source.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:..Apparently gravity existed before the split but radioactive decay did not?

Correct, now whether it was exactly the same is another matter.

That's the point, your supposed to assume nothing.

Says who? Science makes assumptions, and thats OK, long as they are testable, observable, etc. 0in other words not like the old age PO past assumptions! You are the one who assumes a PO past the same as the present but can offer not a speck of proof.

Sources? Please post a source.

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:..Apparently gravity existed before the split but radioactive decay did not?

Correct, now whether it was exactly the same is another matter.

Why? Why would one process exist and another not?
Did the sun shine before the split?

dad wrote:

That's the point, your supposed to assume nothing.

Says who? Science makes assumptions, and thats OK, long as they are testable, observable, etc. 0in other words not like the old age PO past assumptions! You are the one who assumes a PO past the same as the present but can offer not a speck of proof.

PO what's that?

dad wrote:

Sources? Please post a source.

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is a separate area of contention, we can discuss futher in another thread.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Why? Why would one process exist and another not?
Did the sun shine before the split?

I never said it was a certain way, just that we don't know gravity was exactly the same, that I have heard yet. The decay process is not something that is eternal, and with it, we see one day, they say, the sun will burn out. That won't happen. There was light before the sun was made, and the light of the sun will still be here in heaven, but we won't need it.

dad wrote:

That's the point, your supposed to assume nothing.

PO what's that?

Physical Only (as opossed to spiritual and physical combined)

This is a separate area of contention, we can discuss futher in another thread.

Hey you asked for a reference there. Not like it's terribly negotiable.

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Why? Why would one process exist and another not?
Did the sun shine before the split?

I never said it was a certain way, just that we don't know gravity was exactly the same, that I have heard yet. The decay process is not something that is eternal, and with it, we see one day, they say, the sun will burn out. That won't happen. There was light before the sun was made, and the light of the sun will still be here in heaven, but we won't need it.

But why decay but not gravity? You haven't heard anything because gravity doesn't easily upset the preconceived timeline.

...

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Why? Why would one process exist and another not?
Did the sun shine before the split?

I never said it was a certain way, just that we don't know gravity was exactly the same, that I have heard yet. The decay process is not something that is eternal, and with it, we see one day, they say, the sun will burn out. That won't happen. There was light before the sun was made, and the light of the sun will still be here in heaven, but we won't need it.

That is simply bunk. The sun, being the largest hydrogen fusion reactor in our known proximity, WILL burn out at some point. Whether or not humanity still exists to be the watcher of such event. Saying it won't would be to refute virtually all known physical laws of the universe, in much the same way that the "Big Bang" is bunk because it requires "special" preformation laws that couldn't possibly have existed.


But why decay but not gravity? You haven't heard anything because gravity doesn't easily upset the preconceived timeline.

...

Bgood, I have to part with you on this one, under Relativity and Special Relativity. Gravity is one of that last great "frontiers" of total non- or mis- information. We do know that gravity is the one force that changes the constant of light, as it can, through a process not even thought of, bend photons out of their course. We really have no quantifying data for the full summation of effects that gravity does/does not create. Large area of unknowns and boorish specualtion at this point, from what I have seen in the scientific community.

Mastriani wrote:Bgood, I have to part with you on this one, under Relativity and Special Relativity. Gravity is one of that last great "frontiers" of total non- or mis- information. We do know that gravity is the one force that changes the constant of light, as it can, through a process not even thought of, bend photons out of their course. We really have no quantifying data for the full summation of effects that gravity does/does not create. Large area of unknowns and boorish specualtion at this point, from what I have seen in the scientific community.

gravity does not bend light, we know that light only travels in a straight line. gravity bends and warps the space that light travels through. so light is always travelling in a straight line, but sometimes that straight line goes through curved space, such as in a black hole.

Zenith wrote:

Mastriani wrote:Bgood, I have to part with you on this one, under Relativity and Special Relativity. Gravity is one of that last great "frontiers" of total non- or mis- information. We do know that gravity is the one force that changes the constant of light, as it can, through a process not even thought of, bend photons out of their course. We really have no quantifying data for the full summation of effects that gravity does/does not create. Large area of unknowns and boorish specualtion at this point, from what I have seen in the scientific community.

gravity does not bend light, we know that light only travels in a straight line. gravity bends and warps the space that light travels through. so light is always travelling in a straight line, but sometimes that straight line goes through curved space, such as in a black hole.

Also the speed of light remains constanthttp://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/pa ... clens.html
Here's an image of quasars whose images have been warped after passing the gravitational field of a more proximal galaxy.

Zenith wrote:

Mastriani wrote:Bgood, I have to part with you on this one, under Relativity and Special Relativity. Gravity is one of that last great "frontiers" of total non- or mis- information. We do know that gravity is the one force that changes the constant of light, as it can, through a process not even thought of, bend photons out of their course. We really have no quantifying data for the full summation of effects that gravity does/does not create. Large area of unknowns and boorish specualtion at this point, from what I have seen in the scientific community.

gravity does not bend light, we know that light only travels in a straight line. gravity bends and warps the space that light travels through. so light is always travelling in a straight line, but sometimes that straight line goes through curved space, such as in a black hole.

I'm sorry Mr. Zenith, but I have to disagree with that assertion based on the Planck model. Gravity does affect particle, ie. photon movement. Light can be bent, this is not a matter of curved space necessaryily. It depends upon which of the newer schools of thought you come from, foam space or string space. There is also the studies of the gravitational horizon of black holes and the effects initiated by such; again, differing schools of thought. There is also the model that light(photon) speed is not a constant dependent upon the wavelength(blue or red), heat of the particular space sector light travels through, and whether or not gravity is a pull only force, or a push-pull force. Then under push-pull theories, we could find that the "constant" speed of photons is altered within the horizon of a black hole, some gaining speed, some losing speed, and then the entirety of the model falls out. Plus the fact that photons are drawn into a black hole and destroyed or the physically observable state is altered in a way we do not understand, leads to yet another contention. Then you have to add the dark matter and antimatter arguments to the discourse as well.

I would say we have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are an astrophysicist/cosmologist.

Mastriani wrote: I'm sorry Mr. Zenith, but I have to disagree with that assertion based on the Planck model. Gravity does affect particle, ie. photon movement. Light can be bent, this is not a matter of curved space necessaryily. It depends upon which of the newer schools of thought you come from, foam space or string space. There is also the studies of the gravitational horizon of black holes and the effects initiated by such; again, differing schools of thought. There is also the model that light(photon) speed is not a constant dependent upon the wavelength(blue or red), heat of the particular space sector light travels through, and whether or not gravity is a pull only force, or a push-pull force. Then under push-pull theories, we could find that the "constant" speed of photons is altered within the horizon of a black hole, some gaining speed, some losing speed, and then the entirety of the model falls out. Plus the fact that photons are drawn into a black hole and destroyed or the physically observable state is altered in a way we do not understand, leads to yet another contention. Then you have to add the dark matter and antimatter arguments to the discourse as well.

I would say we have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are an astrophysicist/cosmologist.

With the state of cosmology it's a wonder why people question biology so much.
=)

I suppose I should have qualified my previous post with, under the umbrella of general and special relativity the speed of light is beleived to be constant.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mastriani wrote: I'm sorry Mr. Zenith, but I have to disagree with that assertion based on the Planck model. Gravity does affect particle, ie. photon movement. Light can be bent, this is not a matter of curved space necessaryily. It depends upon which of the newer schools of thought you come from, foam space or string space. There is also the studies of the gravitational horizon of black holes and the effects initiated by such; again, differing schools of thought. There is also the model that light(photon) speed is not a constant dependent upon the wavelength(blue or red), heat of the particular space sector light travels through, and whether or not gravity is a pull only force, or a push-pull force. Then under push-pull theories, we could find that the "constant" speed of photons is altered within the horizon of a black hole, some gaining speed, some losing speed, and then the entirety of the model falls out. Plus the fact that photons are drawn into a black hole and destroyed or the physically observable state is altered in a way we do not understand, leads to yet another contention. Then you have to add the dark matter and antimatter arguments to the discourse as well.

I would say we have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are an astrophysicist/cosmologist.

With the state of cosmology it's a wonder why people question biology so much.
=)

I suppose I should have qualified my previous post with, under the umbrella of general and special relativity the speed of light is beleived to be constant.

Nah, you don't necessarily need to qualify, I just look at differing aspects of current theoretical trends for my own postulations.

Here is a question, one I openly admit, I cannot rectify no matter how much I read:

If light travels in a straight line( straight relative to what aspect of what dimensional planar reality?), where does it eventually end up? Certainly at some point a photon has meandered it's way across the entirety of the universe ...... and ....... then ...... it ........ ?