Posted on 04/10/2004 10:39:47 AM PDT by Tribune7
Take solace in the fact that in a Universe of shrinking rulers, even you will eventually "measure up" to the mighty Johnny Wadd.
;-)
"I cannot travel to Proxima Centauri by any existing means." And you say you refute that? Millenia is numbered in thousands. You are not a Christian and do not believe in eternal life, at least that is what you have apparently stated for quite a while. I suppose by your logic, I could say I travelled to Mars if my toenail clippings had somehow hitched a ride on the Spirit Rover.
Good thought, but I did specify that rulers would shrink, and the speed of light is, in the deepest sense, merely a ruler. It relates physical distance scales to physical time durations. We aren't changing the time scale, but we are changing the length scale, so the speed of light will be compelled to shrink right along with everything else.
I certainly hope that you're trying to make a joke here.
If not, I suggest that you ponder that it's hardly "stalking you" when we happen to run into each other on two threads about science (one of my personal interests), and when you comment on how you were allegedly treated on the previous thread, it prompts me to do likewise.
In short, you brought up the subject, don't be surprised when other people discuss it too.
If the mother's body creates antibodies to the baby's blood, it can be very nasty.
Just so.That notwithstanding, Mary's blood mixing with Jesus' blood is a moot point from a theological point of view, since she was free of original sin.
I'm not really up on Catholic theology, but ISTM Mary was free of original sin. If Jesus was the only human ever to live a sinless life, than Mary would have sinned at some point, and her blood would presumably be contaminated thereby.
IAE, all of this is a theological argument, and doesn't reflect anything that can be scientifically measured.
Which may or may not be a good thing.
Long story, but the condensed version is that he accused Jim Robinson of being in league with the devil, since Jim didn't cast the godless evolutionists out of the temple.
As Dave Barry says, "I am not making this up".
The meltdown began long ago, but came to a head here, and in subsequent posts in that thread such as this, this and this, among many others.
The final crash-and-burn was on this thread, mostly around posts 250-500. (Important context: Poster "Dales" is one of JimRob's forum moderators, and he originated that thread in order to see how it unfolded.)
Gravity is still up in the air (pun partially intended), but the electromagnetic and "weak nuclear' forces have been shown to merge into one composite force (which for lack of a better name has been called the "electroweak" force) at high enough energies.
So since the Universe was above this energy level for a while during the initial stages of the Big Bang, then "cooled" to below that energy level as the Universe expanded sufficiently, this may meet your request: At the start there was the electroweak force, and then later they "split" into the two separate electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.
There are good reasons to believe that at even higher energies all four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear) may consolidate into one single "unified" force, but unlike the electroweak merger, that still remains to be determined for sure.
If I had made those posts I would expect similar responses.
one person called me son,
That was me, in reply to your amazing assertion that "A real scientist knows that we don't know anything about anything". My reply was, "Ooooookay..... Speak for yourself, son.".
another told me I could not believe one way, because I believed another.
I still can't find such a reply to you. Could you point it out please?
The tones were both very condescending.
And you don't think you were being condescending first by trying to dismiss all scientific knowledge with over-the-top statements like, "A real scientist knows that we don't know anything about anything"?
OK maybe I wasn't mocked, but I did recieve a smart alecky remark or two,
...in response to irresistably provocative statements.
I can take it.
Then stop bringing it up as if you're still aggrieved.
How can you tell me that just becausew you didn't see condescension that it wasn't there? I know it when I see it.
How can you ready my posts so poorly that you mistakenly think I have ever said that I saw no condescension?
What I said that I didn't see was a post where someone allegedly "eluded that [you] couldn't believe in both the Bible and science". On the contrary, I saw several posts clearly stating that it was indeed possible to believe both.
Tenacious fellow, aren't you? If you're going to defend the equivalency of math and reality by taking away my one big clue, then okay ... I can't distinguish between cosmic expansion and shrinkage. If we were unknowingly living in a shrinking universe it wouldn't change my plans for the weekend.
Around that time there was a concerted effort to get certain people banned from FR. G3K was a casualty. If you notice the last link Ichi posted, it refers to a couple of threads that were started by a mod to "see what would happen."
The mod decided to post two threads: one on Evolution and one on Creation. "Scientists find evolution of life" and "Seven School Board Candidates Would Oppose Teaching Creationism" were chosen. Hmmmm.
No, in fact, it's been much the other way around. Arp, and others have a distinct lack of evidence that has hurt their claims for their models. Most notably, Arp's models only seem to work in a few very specific galaxies, and it very much doesn't explain things that directly support expanding universe models, like Lyman-Alpha Forests, and other things.
On top of that, even if the math showing an expanding universe today were believable (which it isn't), projecting that back to a point at which all the mass of the universe was at a point is sort of like assuming that the elasticity of a rubber band remains the same no matter how far you stretch it. In other words, it's basically a stupid use of mathematics.
You seem awfully proficient in the field over people who have spent their entire lives in study of such things. Do you know something that they don't? I'd say, based on your statements above, you don't understand as much as you think you do. See, there is no assumption. Through quasar redshifts the lyman alpha forests, Supernovae explosions, the Sunayev-Zel'dovich effect, the microwave background radiation and other DIRECT observations, we are more than reasonably sure how the universe was formed, and how long it has taken. Recent observations by the Wilkerson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have done a very good job of that.
Typical materialist propaganda! All you people ever do is rely on verifiable evidence and logical conclusions. Why can't you accept the truth? What are you afraid of?
</creationism mode>
I couldn't read that star map because I lacked the necessary knowledge.
Because I have had this special "revelation" (which you unenlightened can never understand) you should all do exactly what I tell you because it is necessary for your redemption and acceptance into the great cosmic mind, Og.
As my first commandment, you must buy me a beer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.