[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

If a star was nuclear, they'd all blow up.

Some do.

The Bible tells us all about stars, the Sun and the Moon as well as the Earth.

At the time when people didn't understand the universe around them.

All your 'information' was made up by man-devils.

No. It's made up of observations, testings and experiments. You've got no evidence to support you claim saying it's made up of man-devils when you haven't even tried it yourself.

When normal people measure a distance, we use a tape measure or a rolling measure. We do not make a guess.

I'm not even sure if you read my last post, but we use trigonometry (Stellar Parallax is the name of this method)

When you are "measuring", it means that you are using some guidelines.

If you are "guessing" then you better base your guesses on guidelines that make sense.

For example, if you have two stars (a and b) and you know the distance to A, but not to B.
You note that B has the same spectrum as A (same composition) and has the same temperature.

You are then allowed to "suppose" that B should be similar to A in many respects, including the amount of light that it gives off. This is allowed because "in general", stars that have the same mass will work the same, look the same, have the same composition, etc.

If B appears only 1/4 as bright as A (and you know the distance to A) then you are allowed to "guess" that B must be twice as far as A (because light intensity decreases as the square of the distance: twice as far = 1/4 the brightness; three times as far = 1/9 the brightness).

Thus your "guess" is based on rules that have been tested.

However, you are not allowed to simply look at B and say: I'll just claim it is the same distance as A and that, therefore, it must be smaller. THAT would be a guess that is NOT supported by any logic.

There are many rules that are used when measuring the distance to stars. Each one is true "in general" but there can be occasional exceptions.

I'd like to see the calendar from 14 billion years ago. Ever notice we use A.D. and B.C in dates. Ever wonder why?

AD stands for Anno Domini and means after the birth, not death, of Jesus.

We use CE and BCE (common era / before common era).

The universe is ~13.72 billion years. The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. The Chinese calendar does not use A.D. and B.C. A little knowledge of History would not go amiss. Christianity was the universal religion of the Roman Empire. They controlled everything in what you would call the Western World, including the calendar. It's also important to note that the earth has existed for thousands of years before the calendar was invented. Modern time measurement needed a species to get advanced enough to figure it out first.

[James Hutchins]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Friend, I know what a nuclear blast can do, I have seen the nips scurrying about with their flesh melted off and all the little toothpick houses blown away. If a star was nuclear, they'd all blow up.

The Bible tells us all about stars, the Sun and the Moon as well as the Earth. All your 'information' was made up by man-devils. When normal people measure a distance, we use a tape measure or a rolling measure. We do not make a guess.


I'd like to see the calendar from 14 billion years ago. Ever notice we use A.D. and B.C in dates. Ever wonder why?

[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

No friend? How long has the Bible been in the hands of man?No need for you to embarass yourself by responding, think before you blurt out a ridiculous answer. You'll look less foolish next time.

The Universe is 14.5 Billions years old. The Bible has existed for about 3,000 years. I don't think it has withstood the test of time.

Light is like water. It flows until it is absorbed. It is instantaneous. Stars are about 50 miles up in the sky and are little chips of diamonds (that is why they twinkle), reflecting the light emanating from the moon.

Do you even understand Science and Math? I'm just wondering what evidence you have to support you claim? Oh, that's right, none.

The truth is that a star is a ball of super-heated plasma undergoing nuclear fusion at its core, and kept from exploding by its own gravity. Stars are a bit further away than that.

That star gives a vast array of information. Much is gained by analyzing the spectrum of the light the star is sending us (composition, temp, etc.). We combine that info with our knowledge of physics, for example, Doppler effect. To calculate distance, we use what is called spectroscopic parallax.

[James Hutchins]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

No evidence in that claim.

No friend? How long has the Bible been in the hands of man?No need for you to embarass yourself by responding, think before you blurt out a ridiculous answer. You'll look less foolish next time.

Yes. Stars are thousands, and even millions, of light years away .

Light is like water. It flows until it is absorbed. It is instantaneous. Stars are about 50 miles up in the sky and are little chips of diamonds (that is why they twinkle), reflecting the light emanating from the moon.,

[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

The Bible has withstood the test of time. .

No evidence in that claim.

Do you remember what it is? I do.

Yes. Stars are thousands, and even millions, of light years away.

[James Hutchins]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Sorry friend, but you are wrong. The Bible has withstood the test of time.
Your suppositions are like the smell in a mens room, nothing, then pungent foul odor for a minute then just as soon, completely forgotten.

Now, lets get back on topic. Do you remember what it is? I do.

[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Once more, with feeling.

You may not accept the evidence of the Bible but it is evidence, nonetheless.

There will always be people who deny evidence: climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers.

Different people have different standards of evidence. But what is well known is the concept of selective abstraction: this is very much part of human psychology and means that people ignore evidence that contradicts their position.

My point about the a priori assumptions you are making ties nicely into to this point. You are invested in the a priori assumption that God is not real and you ignore evidence (the Bible) that contradicts your position (this is how we deal with cognitive dissonance).

Ever heard the term follow the money? In psychology there is a term similar: 'what do I get from denying God'? People used to have deusathazagorphobia but this is very rare in the modern age: being forgotten by God used to mean something.

Why do you want to reject the evidence of Him? In my experience it because of deep routed (often suppressed) desire for homersexualism. I'm not saying that is true in your case but the question to ask is always: 'what do I get from denying God'.

The bible is evidence of nothing. The bible stories are evidence that ancient people wrote down stories about a "god" they believed in. They're not evidence of any "god." Your claim that it is is fallacious, dishonest, and rather silly.

Okay, well here is something that we've learnt about the universe, and it doesn't match with your literal view of the Bible. There is a conflict there, and we need to resolve that, and there are some people (mostly people on here) who resolve it using the Bible; saying the bible is 100% correct and ignore and reject the actual evidence presented. Now, this turns Christianity into a self-contradictory preposition because your position is one where there is a God that has an important message to mankind, and, somehow, he only reveals it to certain people who then writes it down and thousands of years afterwards we have to rely on copies and copies by unknown authors with no originals with no amount of reports that could be sufficient to justify the believing that events said the the book actual happened; no amount. Anything that would qualify as a God would clearly understand this and if it wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable, it would not be relying on text to do so, and, this for me, is the nail in the coffin for Christianity.

Thinking about it, the God that Christians believe in is amazingly clever if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spending the above information on humanity, by relying on text, by relying on languages, by relying on testimonies. That's no a pathway to truth. Anything that would qualify for a God to should know this, which means either that God doesn't exist or it doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it.

It is evidence that determined if your perception of reality is reasonable in conjunction with the world around you. Something, clearly throughout time and reason, the bible doesn't have.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

I don't believe it because there is no sufficient evidence for it. As it is represented in the bible, there are a number of claims of the virgin birth, a large number of miracles, this dearth and resurrection thing and all of it, at best, hearsay. It's a translation of a copy of a copy of hearsay, hearsay and hearsay - there is a no first person accounts, there's no contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed and the bible is full of historical errors.



No evidence of a Heaven existing.

Once more, with feeling.

You may not accept the evidence of the Bible but it is evidence, nonetheless.

There will always be people who deny evidence: climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers.

Different people have different standards of evidence. But what is well known is the concept of selective abstraction: this is very much part of human psychology and means that people ignore evidence that contradicts their position.

My point about the a priori assumptions you are making ties nicely into to this point. You are invested in the a priori assumption that God is not real and you ignore evidence (the Bible) that contradicts your position (this is how we deal with cognitive dissonance).

Ever heard the term follow the money? In psychology there is a term similar: 'what do I get from denying God'? People used to have deusathazagorphobia but this is very rare in the modern age: being forgotten by God used to mean something.

Why do you want to reject the evidence of Him? In my experience it because of deep routed (often suppressed) desire for homersexualism. I'm not saying that is true in your case but the question to ask is always: 'what do I get from denying God'.

In other words: follow the money.

John 6:64-69 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

YIC

[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

You might not want to beleive that Jesus temporarily died for you...

I don't believe it because there is no sufficient evidence for it. As it is represented in the bible, there are a number of claims of the virgin birth, a large number of miracles, this dearth and resurrection thing and all of it, at best, hearsay. It's a translation of a copy of a copy of hearsay, hearsay and hearsay - there is a no first person accounts, there's no contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed and the bible is full of historical errors.

to have the chance to go to Heaven...

No evidence of a Heaven existing.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Why do you believe the Bible? Where is the independent verification of the accounts that are in that book to demonstrate the truth of the claims?



The Sun



You have no evidence to support this claim.

You seem to be missing the very salient point that he Bible is evidence. You might not want to beleive that Jesus temporarily died for you to have the chance to go to Heaven but your personal belief cannot be used to rule out the veracity of the Bible a priori.

YIC

[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Cause it's in the Bible, duh.

Why do you believe the Bible? Where is the independent verification of the accounts that are in that book to demonstrate the truth of the claims?

Do you see light in the daytime? Who do you think did that?

The Sun

IT WAS GOD. He said it because He did it, like everything else.

You have no evidence to support this claim.

[Basilissa]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Do not apologize for being correct sir. He who is who is without sin cast the first stone. Meaning that all these people who are judging people like us, are in fact doing more harm than good, and are in fact sinning. So as jesus said, Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. These "christians" obviously completely disregard Jesus' teachings.

1. The judging issue: The Most MISUNDERSTOOD Passage in All the Bible

2. The "do unto others" issue: it is relative - masochists want to feel pain, so they should inflict pain unto others, etc.

3. Try to show me with the Bible, that any of the True Christians is disregarding Jesus' teachings. Do not post anything until you find the evidence

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

How do you know God said "Let there be light"?

Do you see light in the daytime? Who do you think did that? Some smart-aleck joo like Einstein or Darwin?

IT WAS GOD. He said it because He did it, like everything else.

[Bjorn Jensen]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

How do you know that's correct?

Your move.

Cause it's in the Bible, duh.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: How can we see stars if they are "millions of light years" aw

Here at the Landover Christian University Research Department, we pride ourselves (in a Godly and modest way) on our open-mindedness. We look at the Words of God in The Bible (KJV1611) and look for evidence, any evidence, however unlikely, that confirms The Bible to be true. This is known as the Biblical Definitive Scientific Method (BDSM).

BDSM is the practice of choice among all of those in the Department, no matter how painstaking it has to be.

As far as the stars are concerned, we may dismiss NASA’s (National Association of Satanists and Abominations) view that there are 10^21 stars of biblical size. Were this true, no matter how dim the stars were, the night-time firmament would glow with a brilliance akin only to God’s Breath!

The stars are therefore about 500 in number, small, near the earth and made of burning coal. The sun, which is considerably larger that all the stars together orbits the earth between the earth and those stars. The Sun is accurately described in this post http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showp...57&postcount=1 as being about 500 miles away.

This surprises many people who are not “into” BDSM but the rigor of this study cannot easily be discounted.