Tree Rings / Calendars

Originally posted by RJHinds
They are like the blind leading the blind. How simple it is for God to make
fools out of those who think they are wise. 😏

Pride before a fall, I don't like going down a path where I pat myself on the
back either. I've been humble here more than once, and I know I have
before God too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I take offense in that you stop dealing with issues/debate and go after me
personally. If you read my position I have never said the ages of the earth
or universe isn't billions years old; I maintain I don't know how old it is.

I dislike you and others here who cannot seem to just carry on a conversation,
you have to go after the people you are talkin if you want to claim it is right and factual like another
poster here did, feel free.
Kelly

Exactly where did I go after you personally kelly? The part about floating off into space wasn't a personal attack - it was merely a projection of your reasoning onto another well established principle in science - in this case gravity.

The governing equations and the data available to scientists who perform the dating with a variety of methods imply results that are 6 orders of magnitude higher than the result you get from a book written by iron age savages. Indeed you could take the square of your estimate for the age of the earth and it is still small in comparison to the estimates of those who are authoritative on the subject. To be wrong by this sort of margin would compel us to greet every established scientific fact with a fresh and substantial dose of skepticism. Consequently my suggestion that you should watch out for floating off into space is well grounded if you are actually correct in this regard. If you don't like this and see it as a personal attack then you should really take a closer look at the nonsense you're spouting and strive towards a more sophisticated world view that doesn't involve talking snakes and whatever other biblical garbage you think should stand in as a replacement for science.

Originally posted by Agerg
Exactly where did I go after you personally kelly? The part about floating off into space wasn't a personal attack - it was merely a projection of your reasoning onto another well established principle in science - in this case gravity.

The governing equations and the data available to scientists who perform the dating with a variety of methods imply result ...[text shortened]... and whatever other biblical garbage you think should stand in as a replacement for science.

I took it as shot against me personally. As I pointed out with distant dates
and garvity they are not the same, we have one with us in the here and now
while the distant past is somewhere we cannot go. I'll take your word that you
didn't mean it was one, and sorry for my part where I missunderstood your
intent.
Kelly

Originally posted by Agerg
Exactly where did I go after you personally kelly? The part about floating off into space wasn't a personal attack - it was merely a projection of your reasoning onto another well established principle in science - in this case gravity.

The governing equations and the data available to scientists who perform the dating with a variety of methods imply result ...[text shortened]... and whatever other biblical garbage you think should stand in as a replacement for science.

Since you do not know how everything came into being, you really do go on
and on what is and isn't grounded in reality.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Since you do not know how everything came into being, you really do go on
and on what is and isn't grounded in reality.
Kelly

The main reason they follow the reasoning of the evolutionists like zoombies
is because they don't want to believe in the God of the Holy Bible and the
responsibilities that go with that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out with distant dates
and garvity they are not the same, we have one with us in the here and now
while the distant past is somewhere we cannot go.

Except they are the same. Neither can be observed directly. There really is no difference between something observed today and something observed that was yesterday. Both are observations.
Your argument suggests that if a star is 4 light years away (and thus we can only observe what it looked like 4 years ago) then somehow our observations are less accurate than when we look at the moon. And you argue this solely on the passage of time, not on distance, optical resolution or anything else. You are actually suggesting that if a star is say 4 million light years away, then we don't really know if it exists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except they are the same. Neither can be observed directly. There really is no difference between something observed today and something observed that was yesterday. Both are observations.
Your argument suggests that if a star is 4 light years away (and thus we can only observe what it looked like 4 years ago) then somehow our observations are less accur ...[text shortened]... sting that if a star is say 4 million light years away, then we don't really know if it exists.

Some scientists say that some stars are moving away from us faster than the
speed of light. Doesn't that give us reason to doubt?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except they are the same. Neither can be observed directly. There really is no difference between something observed today and something observed that was yesterday. Both are observations.
Your argument suggests that if a star is 4 light years away (and thus we can only observe what it looked like 4 years ago) then somehow our observations are less accur ...[text shortened]... sting that if a star is say 4 million light years away, then we don't really know if it exists.

You are not observing the distant past in a dating method while you are
observing gavity today. So I again "respectfully" disagree with you. Your
looking at light travel 4 light years away can be monitored in our life time
if you could really tell what partical started where and watched it travel to
here. Again, short distances that can be done and has been done, bouncing
signals off the moon for example, but longer distances we are assuming a lot.
Even if I were to agree that a star is 4 light years away, or 400 million, that
is still the distance from us it is now, not how long that star has been there.

If we don't know how it all started, how do you know the positions of all
things historically? Assuming you have an inkling about how it started allows
for that, but if you are wrong in your assumptions about that, than all your
views about this place should come into question.

Also don't you also believe time changes in rate? If that is true, then how do
you know how we should measure time, maybe it was faster, or slower than
we are aware of?
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some scientists say that some stars are moving away from us faster than the
speed of light. Doesn't that give us reason to doubt?

No scientist says this.

If I am wrong, then you have to give a source, a ref, or a description of the case.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some scientists say that some stars are moving away from us faster than the
speed of light. Doesn't that give us reason to doubt?

No.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are not observing the distant past in a dating method while you are
observing gavity today.

Huh? What do you mean by that? What is a dating method if not an observation?

Your looking at light travel 4 light years away can be monitored in our life time
if you could really tell what partical started where and watched it travel to
here.
You cannot watch light travel. That makes no sense at all.

Even if I were to agree that a star is 4 light years away, or 400 million, that
is still the distance from us it is now, not how long that star has been there.
But you don't even know if it is there, because you claim the passage of time destroys the observation.

If we don't know how it all started, how do you know the positions of all
things historically? Assuming you have an inkling about how it started allows
for that, but if you are wrong in your assumptions about that, than all your
views about this place should come into question.
Now you have lost me.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No scientist says this.

If I am wrong, then you have to give a source, a ref, or a description of the case.

No actually, he is right: there are galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

The reason is that it is not the galaxies that are moving through space faster than light, but that the space itself in between us and the galaxy is expanding faster than light. That's how I understand it anyway. It is complicated, unintuitive, stuff and I am no physicist!

And no, it need not give us cause to doubt. Or only briefly while we educate ourselves.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Huh? What do you mean by that? What is a dating method if not an observation?

[b]Your looking at light travel 4 light years away can be monitored in our life time
if you could really tell what partical started where and watched it travel to
here.
You cannot watch light travel. That makes no sense at all.

Even if I were to agree that a sta ...[text shortened]... t, than all your
views about this place should come into question.
Now you have lost me.[/b]

KJ: Even if I were to agree that a star is 4 light years away, or 400 million, that
is still the distance from us it is now, not how long that star has been there.

No it is not the distance it is from us now, it is the distance it appears to be from us now given that the light started out from it 4 (or 400 million) years ago. the star will have moved since then.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
The reason is that it is not the galaxies that are moving through space faster than light, but that the space itself in between us and the galaxy is expanding faster than light. That's how I understand it anyway. It is complicated, unintuitive, stuff and I am no physicist!

Interesting fact, but as you say, it's not the stars in these far away galaxies that is moving away from us, it's the space itself. And this doesn't invalidate Professor Einsteins theory that 'nothing material can go faster than light'.

However, RJHinds is a creationist, and cannot grasp this kind of physics, so we don't need to go further into this subject.

RJHinds says: "Some scientists say that some stars are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Doesn't that give us reason to doubt?"
and I answer: "No scientist says this. If I am wrong, then you have to give a source, a ref, or a description of the case."

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Interesting fact, but as you say, it's not the stars in these far away galaxies that is moving away from us, it's the space itself. And this doesn't invalidate Professor Einsteins theory that 'nothing material can go faster than light'.

However, RJHinds is a creationist, and cannot grasp this kind of physics, so we don't need to go further into this su ...[text shortened]... If I am wrong, then you have to give a source, a ref, or a description of the case."

Fair enough. It's certainly interesting stuff to discuss sensibly in 'Science' instead of ignorantly in 'Spirituality'..

--- Penguin