Are you an atheist?

[nanscombe]

I'd rather watch a two hour long science fiction film about a being who visits Earth and inspires awe in the people with their advanced technology.

All sorts of tricks can be achieved by film makers and magicians.

 

[spikepl]

"Happens to you when you die"....

For reasons unknown, this reminds me of an interview I once saw, ages ago, obviously, with the late Dr. Kevorkian (you might want to google him, if you do not recognize the name). He was asked "What happens when you die?" and his answer was "You rot"

 

[Frothingslosh]

Blade, Blade, Blade.

Just because someone pulled a doctorate out of a Cracker Jack box doesn't mean they're educated.

That whole 'speed of light is slowing down' thing is, like all the rest of your 'evidence', based on an egregious, willful misunderstanding of quantum theory. A debunking of this hypothesis can be found HERE, but in a nutshell, your man Setterfield alternated between faking data, grossly misstating results, and twisting data to fit his already-existing preconception - that the universe is less than 7000 years old, and that all observations must be FORCED to fit that framework.

I'd say it's bad science, but it's not even science; it's religion masquerading as science.

Next up, there is not one single prophecy in the Bible that has come true. In fact, the Antichrist written of in Revelations is quite blatantly meant to be Nero, but the end of the world never came. Nor did it when you religious types claimed it would happen in 1000, then again in 2000. I believe there was supposed to be another end of the world just last month - I must have slept through it.

And please, show me where the Bible speaks of aliens, because I don't see ET mentioned even a single time.

Yes, any 5th grade mathematician can create a formula to turn 15 billion into 6 days. That's nothing to be amazed by unless you find division to be mystical and awe-inspiring.

Again, nowhere in the Bible does it state we live in a 10-dimensional universe. In fact, even in quantum theory that's just one possibility.

And for the record, there is no point at which something shrinks from 'insanely small' to 'covers the entire universe'. That doesn't even make logical sense. The smallest observable length is the Planck Length of 1.61622837 × 10-35 meters, which is due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Your 1 * e ^ -45 value is TIME, not length - it is the smallest amount of time we are capable of measuring, as it is amount of time a photon requires to travel the Planck Length in a vacuum. So chalk another one up to your religious quack lying.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, Blade, Blade.

Just because someone pulled a doctorate out of a Cracker Jack box doesn't mean they're educated.

That whole 'speed of light is slowing down' thing is, like all the rest of your 'evidence', based on an egregious, willful misunderstanding of quantum theory. A debunking of this hypothesis can be found HERE, but in a nutshell, your man Setterfield alternated between faking data, grossly misstating results, and twisting data to fit his already-existing preconception - that the universe is less than 7000 years old, and that all observations must be FORCED to fit that framework.

My, My Forthingslosh, it did not take you long to try to take a bit out of my cake. Here is an article full of references about the slow down of light.
Keep in mind that any transition of the speed of light (high or low) is significant in the overall picture.


"The issue of light-speed in the early cosmos is one which has received some attention recently in several peer-reviewed journals. Starting in December 1987, the Russian physicist V. S. Troitskii from the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky published a twenty-two page analysis in Astrophysics and Space Science regarding the problems cosmologists faced with the early universe. He looked at a possible solution if it was accepted that light-speed continuously decreased over the lifetime of the cosmos, and the associated atomic constants varied synchronously. He suggested that, at the origin of the cosmos, light may have traveled at 1010 times its current speed. He concluded that the cosmos was static and not expanding.

In 1993, J. W. Moffat of the University of Toronto, Canada, had two articles published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D (see also [75]). He suggested that there was a high value for 'c' during the earliest moments of the formation of the cosmos, following which it rapidly dropped to its present value. Then, in January 1999, a paper in Physical Review D by Andreas Albrecht and Joao Magueijo, entitled "A Time Varying Speed Of Light As A Solution To Cosmological Puzzles" received a great deal of attention. These authors demonstrated that a number of serious problems facing cosmologists could be solved by a very high initial speed of light.
Like Moffat before them, Albrecht and Magueijo isolated their high initial light-speed and its proposed dramatic drop to the current speed to a very limited time during the formation of the cosmos. However, in the same issue of Physical Review D there appeared a paper by John D. Barrow, Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He took this concept one step further by proposing that the speed of light has dropped from the value proposed by Albrecht and Magueijo down to its current value over the lifetime of the universe.
An article in New Scientist for July 24, 1999, summarised these proposals in the first sentence. "Call it heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will simply melt away, if you break one rule, says John D. Barrow - the rule that says the speed of light never varies." Interestingly, the initial speed of light proposed by Albrecht, Magueijo and Barrow is 1060 times its current speed. In contrast, the redshift data give a far less dramatic result. The most distant object seen in the Hubble Space Telescope has a redshift, 'z', of 14. This indicates light-speed was about 9 ( 108 greater than now. At the origin of the cosmos this rises to about 2.5 ( 1010 times the current value of c, more in line with Troitskii's proposal, and considerably more conservative than the Barrow, Albrecht and Magueijo estimate. This lower, more conservative estimate is also in line with the 1987 Norman-Setterfield Report. (Barry Setterfield, January 24, 2000)



I'll even give you a little more,,,,just for you.
http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/earlycosmos.html

you said:"Just because someone pulled a doctorate out of a Cracker Jack box doesn't mean they're educated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler


Of, course it tells me you did not look at the first url I offered...Your Loss

Have a good day and may God be with you.


Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade, with due respect to you as a person, I have to say that I have seen enough folks use the "Bible is full of true prophecies" claim that I have stopped laughing and started shaking my head in pity at the sheer STUPIDITY of such a statement.

For the Bible to be a valid source of prophecy, it must make a definite and (relatively) precise statement about an event that DOES NOT happen inside the OT, NT, or Apocrypha, but that is independently verifiable through scientific measurement and/or reliable observation. Otherwise, the Bible and the Harry Potter series are exactly the same - two literary works that include a prophetic but cryptic statement that could be interpreted in more than one way and that comes true inside that work.

Sadly, the Bible's prophecies and fulfillments are all self-contained. Worse, they are often about the actions of a single person or a group whose actions cannot be tracked through history - which means we can never verify the validity of the prophecy. The best way to become a perfect prophet is to make untestable predictions that cannot possibly come true in your lifetime. Then nobody can call you a liar because your proof won't occur in time to vindicated you OR expose you for the charlatan that you are.

As a matter of fact, as a hobbyist writer working on fantasy novels (of the sword and sorcery variety), I can point to maybe about 25-30 prophetic visions/dreams that come true in my works. Does that mean that MY work is on par with the Bible? I'd give you chapter and paragraph references but the problem is that I so far have not found a publisher willing to purchase my work. But that's OK. It'll give me something to do in my retirement.

Blade, I have seen a thousand videos by people who claimed to be able to prove the validity of the Bible - but all they do is trot out the same old tired references that have already been discredited again and again. Watching one more is of no value to me.

As to your speaker who has "as many Doctorates" as I do - it means nothing if the degree is in a bull-dinky subject, or if the scholar got his paper from a "paper mill" college. I can name a dozen folks who have their PhD but never learned how to think analytically. Even Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling was sometimes a jerk when he started down the garden path on race issues. Having a doctorate doesn't make you smart. Being smart, however, can help you earn a doctorate. I will merely state that I believe I fall into the second category, but don't wish to make excessive claims.

As to the variability of the speed of light right after the Big Bang, we must remember that if Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaitre and a dozen other Cosmological physicists are right, it is a matter of the cart and the horse. The speed of light seems (and I chose that word carefully) to be a property of the "shape" of space-time. Right after the Big Bang, space-time was mutating a LOT. Its "shape" had not yet been stabilized. I have no problem with superluminal energy transfer if space-time is still in flux. You can make all sorts of claims about how that accounts for the age of the Earth being only 7000 years or so. But you CAN'T avoid the hard evidence from the Ganges River cultures that go back more than 10,000 years. You could mealy-mouth your way through a 3-year, or 30-year, or even a 300-year variance. But southern Asia cultures force you to face a 3000-year variation. And if you accept radioactive decay dating methods (not limited to Carbon-14), modern Man has been around for 30,000+ years in France alone.

Blade, it comes down to this: You can't face the reality of evolution or the long-term presence of Man on a planet if you can't first accept that the age of the planet is a lot higher than your primitively based religion claims. And there is where you should read up on cognitive dissonance. I am reminded of a line from A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As to a comment made in passing about how declining to watch yet another "I can prove the truth of the Bible" video is a form of Cognitive Dissonance:

I don't know that it is a pure example of Cognitive Dissonance so much as it is a practical application of the Law of Diminishing Returns.

 

[Bladerunner]

As to a comment made in passing about how declining to watch yet another "I can prove the truth of the Bible" video is a form of Cognitive Dissonance:

I don't know that it is a pure example of Cognitive Dissonance so much as it is a practical application of the Law of Diminishing Returns.

not sure what you are talking about here but for the prior post, I would have expected nothing different from you Doc.

Have a Great Day and May in spite of yourself

, God be with you!.

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade, though I don't agree with you, I thank you for being civil and offering good wishes - good with respect to what you believe to be true. May your day bring you good luck with each roll of the cosmic dice that Einstein didn't like but that Robert Oppenheimer proved were in use.

 

[Bladerunner]

to Doc and the Others:

There will come a day when millions of people All Christians will leave this world at one time. (The Rapture).

At the time you see this think of me and these words because It Will happen in our lifetime.

You have waited too late to make the correct decision!

I wish you all well..

See you later on other post of the forum and may God bless each of you.

Blade

 

[Libre]

Sure Blade.
Catch up with you then.
Until then - watch out for Russell's teapot in space.
Ta-ta!

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ah, the Rapture. A false belief mentioned nowhere in the Bible that was first suggested in the late 1600's by the Puritans and which didn't gain popularity until the early 1800's and even then only REALLY took off in the 1970's. It's also pretty much Protestant-only, and even there limited to those denominations of greater-than-usual conservative bent.

Good to know even Blade here is a heretic, despite his ranting about how we're all doomed.

 

[Bladerunner]

I digress and promise this will be the last as I am sure you are getting tired of my (as you would say..insane) ramblings. I do believe Libre told us they were getting old by his last post.

I happen to run upon this audio about the Pyramid of Giza (center of Egypt) and closer to England at Stonehenge.

A lot of numbers, a lot of scheptizism, a lot of conjecture, a lot of connections with the Bible. For you scientist, for you doubters.

In other words, it is out of this world and only about 1 hour 15 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ocIHPlFTI

have fun

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade, I noticed that you suggested earlier that the Rapture would occur in our lifetime. Unless you said that awkwardly or didn't mean it the way it came out, I have to class your prediction as the same that whack-job of a preacher who, not once but TWICE, recently predicted the end of the world. People sold their belongings because of his prediction, except they were proven to have been considerably premature. After his second failure, he had the good grace to step down and shut his yap.

If we were to rely on every prediction of some significant religious event made by folks of this religion or that one, we would be literally drowned in the tears we would shed when that prediction failed to come true. As was pointed out earlier, the Rapture is not a Biblical prediction, and it asserts a type of disaster that won't happen. (Wait, you say... how do I know it won't happen?) If you read the Bible instead of just thump it, you would recall the promise of the rainbow, which clearly states that God promised He would not visit disasters on the Earth again. With the Rapture predictions, it seems to me that you are calling God a liar. Is that a good idea within the tenets of your religion?

 

[Rx_]

I knew a married couple, an atheist and an agnostic.
They use to get into terrible fights on what religion not to bring up the children in.

 

[Libre]

If you read the Bible instead of just thump it, you would recall the promise of the rainbow, which clearly states that God promised He would not visit disasters on the Earth again.

Not quite right, Doc man. The promise was not to destroy the Earth again by FLOOD. He kept his options open, and did not waive the right to destroy the Earth by any other means. It really comes down to a promise that nobody who believes this nonsense in the first place should take any comfort in.

 

[Frothingslosh]

My personal favorite:

 

[Bladerunner]

Hi Doc,,Frothy.....

It seems we are at it again and as usual, you don't know what you are talking about. The Rapture (Raptus as rootword from Latin) means caught-up-taken away.. The Greek word Harpozo ..to seize, to carry off by force, to snatch out or away.

If you read (1 Thessalonians 4:17) you will see the word (Caught-up) which is how the word Rapture became popular.. As you can see it is real and it will happen. BUT,,,Frothy,,you were right, The word Rapture is not in the Bible.....at least not the English version of it.

Doc....my apologies if I sounded like I was predicting the (Rapture/Harpozo/caught-up) prophecy to happen at a certain time.

We are within in the interval of what is called Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy (given to him by Gabriel). We have been within that interval for almost two thousand years. How much longer will we be there I do not know but by the recent world events, it might not be much longer.

Keep in mind that the (Rapture/Harpozo/caught-up) is the only prophetic event that is distinctively both unspecified and imminent. Imminent--(about to happen).

It could happen within the next ten minutes or the next few years. We don't know but the Bible tells us to be watchful or risk being left behind. I do not intend to be left behind.

It is my opinion and belief that it will happen within my lifetime. Having said that, realistically I really do hope it does and if it does not then I will go to my grave believing in Jesus Christ. So please don't get all bent out of shape that I am predicting anything, I AM NOT. Further more, if it happened tonight, you would not have to worry about it and your life would go on as usual ...well somewhat usual.

When it happens Doc just rem. what I have said because it is apparent that you and Frothy will still be here. Sad but true.

Have a great afternoon

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Not quite right, Doc man. The promise was not to destroy the Earth again by FLOOD. He kept his options open, and did not waive the right to destroy the Earth by any other means. It really comes down to a promise that nobody who believes this nonsense in the first place should take any comfort in.

Way to go Libre: way to go....Now ask yourself why he destroyed the first world? Just to destroy good people or maybe wicked people or maybe people who did not believe. ???got any ideas>>>>>

Answer this and you will know why he will do it again.

Have a great evening....

Blade

 

[Libre]

Now ask yourself why he destroyed the first world?

Well, not really sure Blade. Far be it from me to guess the motives of divine beings. The short answer is that He looked upon the world and was righteously PO'ed at all the wickedness. Decided to wash it clean and start all over.
So, by extension, you might say that compared with all the wickedness in ancient times, they were like saints compared with us - so watch out because any millennia now, He might decide that enough is enough. We can rule out a flood because we have His word on that (and if you can't trust God's word, who's word CAN you trust?) but the Yellowstone super-caldera is looking pretty ripe, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring prophecies are holding true to the letter, asteroids whiz by the Earth at alarmingly small distances (the one's we see coming), and the new IOS 9 has been pretty buggy. Any of these and an infinite number of other cataclysms can be our undoing without any need of floods. So don't get too comfy there. The end is near. I figure I can beat the odds if the Big Man just holds off another 20-30 years or so.
Of course, after that I'll have to deal with eternity. I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If the Rapture actually occurs, those of us left behind will experience a Rapture of our own. We'll finally have a world where the most strident proselytizers have been taken out of the picture, leaving us in a relatively quieter environment. And of course that is not me stating a death wish for the proselytizers because being taken by the Rapture is clearly something they would want. So I don't feel as though I've done anything wrong in expressing my desire for the Rapture to take them now and get it over with.

OK, Libre, the promise of the rainbow is about floods. Do you count a tsunami in that? Because Pat Robertson claimed that the Indonesian tsunami was a punishment for the ungodly ways of the world. We should always remember that the Bible tells us that the realm of spirituality isn't about this world. So my question is, why would God bother with worldly disasters?

If He wants to harvest more souls, he could just take a few right away, being omnipotent and all that. He wouldn't need to wish up a disaster. If He did need to do so, what just happened to omnipotence? If the Rapture is supposed to be a demonstration of His power, why wait?

It is the nagging little inconsistencies like that one that amplifies my doubts.