![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Norval
The intriguing thing about curiosity, at some point it has to start working for you and start proving to yourself, not just sheep following the previous sheep over the cliff as the sheep keep going over the cliff the integrity of the science disciplines is disintegrating. The same goes for religion with its procedures and protocols.Dr. Skeptic wrote:That's great but how do you explain/prove it to someone lacking your faith but with a strong sense of curiosity?craterchains wrote:I'll take the bibles very simple explaination.![]()
Norval
Blind faith doesn't work for everybody, you might need more tools in your arsenal.
could you please explain the connection with the topicThe same goes for religion with its procedures and protocols.
An example, “weight for me the weight of fire, or measure me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past” or “show me the picture of a voice”.
It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects, in which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift in a given object, is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”.
In an eternal Universe how do you deal with entropy? Even if you allow matter to recycle the fusion reactions of the previous generations of stars will have emitted a significant amount of mass as energy in the form of starlight. This starlight cant just disappear, that would violate conservation of energy. So the next generation of stars must contain less mass than the previous. Eventually all the emitted star-light will have heated up the Universe to such a point that no more star formation can occur. The Universe will reach a uniform temperature and at that point nothing ever happens again, nothing moves, nothing emits or absorbs, the Universe is over.
David Pratt
If light from stars or galaxies is passed through a prism or grating, a spectrum is obtained, consisting of a series of lines and bands. These spectra can be used to identify the atomic elements present in the objects concerned, as each element has a distinct spectral "signature." But if we compare the spectral lines of distant galaxies with those produced by the same elements on earth, we find that in every case the lines are displaced towards longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as the redshift, and is the subject of intense controversy. The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].
Thats why Arp can't get time on telescopes, because his theories are the worst type of rubbish. I mean we make particles in particle accelarators everyday, guess what, they all have the same mass, none of them start out massless, or even with masses less than particles that haven't just been created.To explain how redshift might be related to age, Arp and Jayant Narlikar suggest that instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases.
You are saying that there was a threshold of understanding you had to reach before you determined faith needed to be part of the equation. Should every other persons threshold be equal to yours? What of those that who's threshold is higher?It was curiosity that caused me to first read the bible, but only after I had concluded by reasoning that this universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies had to be created by one hell of an engineer and builder. I seriously wanted to meet such a being, and say thank you. The incredible complexity of our ecology here on earth, in the time that it could have supported life of some kind to begin with, throws the odds in the face of all evolutionists for how life came about here.
however you also said that you would take the simple explanation of the Bible ..surely that takes faithYou asked about faith and theology, today one doesn't need either one
I can see getting lost in the universe, I was referring to your dialog.craterchains wrote:It's a mighty big universe, one can get lost.
You asked about faith and theology, today one doesn't need either one.
Norval
please quote the verse/s of the passage of Scripture that you refer toWith the ability to answer those questions, just one of them actually, it states that we would begin to understand the things of the heavens, and such of "God" and those that created us.