Steven Avery

Sven, I actually may look at your posts later, however I lost interest quickly because of your tude. Your speaking of my supposed "fantasies" when I was simply linking to diverse literature about the issue, which any reader can see shows that pointing out the "constant speed of light" as a universal principle is at best a rather complex and controversial declaration.

In fact the speed of light being "constant" is essentially a modern construct, where the constant is declared by fiat while other items (gravitation, time, magnetism, etc) can be variable. And the physics of the next decade or century may take an entirely different approach, as in fact do many physicists today. From my studies the speed of light as constant has no intrinsic "rightness" any more than the declarations of Newtonian physics are the full truth of the universe.

To add to the mix, even within modern physics we know that such laws are considered as breaking down, inapplicable, to the issues of singularity and the big bang (does anybody precisely state when and where they become applicable and the exact nature of the universe at that moment?). Rather a substantial omission.

All this making the issues that much more complex (and probably on the wrong forum here). However, I have seen nothing in Sven's posts that I have read that indicate that he offers edifying dialog, and my time on this forum is rather focused on biblical issues, where quite a bit actually can be learned by the astute reader. So if I ignore most of Sven's posts, and/or read them days late, it is not a disinterest in the issue, but simply a time-management and edifying-learning decision. They are simply very low priority.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

buckshot23

Which isn't the point. Of course it is meant to be literal but it uses the exact same terminology as in the psalm. So your simile argument fails. The inclusion of "like" in the bibles case no more shows simile than the usage in the buick quote. Furthermore when using a simile one doesn't use the subject in the non literal form. When saying, "she is strong like a river" which part is literal? In the psalm God comes after "like". All this being said however, I find this irrelevant. Whether it is simile or metaphor is beyond the point. It is NON literal which all I need to show to cast doubt on the literal interpretation about the earth.
However we know intuitively what is being said here. It is using "non literal" language.
Like I said above it seems irrelevant as to what non literal form it is using.
It doesn't matter in either case.
It is a possibility that this is metaphor but one need not demonstrate this to explain this passage. If it is not a metaphor then the relational argument takes care of the problem just fine. As this language is used every single day by you, Sven and Mr Mcgoo.
First I demonstrate that the passage that Sven ripped this snippet out of used "non literal" language which to me at least puts the "non literal" interpretation on the table. Then I provide another explanation. I haven't expressed which one I thought was better. Either one answers the question.
I would say it does. Which would you rather have? Rabbits with 2 ears or an earth flying through space without any stability whatsoever?
Irrelevant. Understanding it and recognizing that God established it are totally different things.
:huh:
This is poetry. Are we forgetting this? Imagine....

Roses are red violets are a phenomenon in which a wave has a length of 450 nm...

Kind of blows up the timing and feel a bit.
Tell me why it matters?
Those aren't mutually exclusive of eachother. A biblical writer may not have had full knowledge upon every subject. To expect otherwise is to expect all biblical authors to have infinite knowledge and to know exactly what God knows.
I told you that it was an irrelevant point, did I not? Furthermore I was referring to MY actions and not something I was doing to you.
They may have expressed it but they don't know anything about Morris' resting place. They have good reason to believe it but they don't know it.
So melodramatic.
Wrong. :wave:

Sven

Sorry, I'm no native speaker, so I'm at a loss what "tude" means. My dictionary provided a bunch of words with similar spelling, but none of them made any sense in this place.

Yup. Your fantasies of a young Earth and universe are well known. And it's also well known that a changing speed of light is one of the most precious YEC "arguments". So don't pretend that this was "simply" about this.

You are again being disingenious. It is only controversial for times very early in the universe, billions of years ago. But you again may it sound like as if this in any way would support YEC.

Where did you got this form?

None take an approach which in any way would support a young universe.

:huh:

The constancy of c is not a law - it is something we observe. It's a fact.

What breaks down at singularities (which the Big Bang is) is General Relativity - not the constancy of c. And we can pin down quite easily where/when it breaks down: At the Planck scale (which depends on c, thus any claim that c changes below it does not even make sense).

I just thought that you may admit your <error>. Apparently not.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Tude is modern slang for "attitude".

YEC is not the topic on this thread, and rarely if ever on this forum.
And YEC are split on the issue of the speed of light constant.
Afaik the view of Russell Humphreys, which is probably today
more popular in YEC circles than Setterfield, does not make an
issue of an unconstant speed of light. I do find the literature
on the speed of light fascinating but not "most precious".

Beyond that you simply put your own assumptions into
your arguments. Making them irrelevant to a conceptual
discussion (your billions of years of time are conditional
upon your view of light and red-shift).

Laters I will look for a couple of quotes and discussions about
singularity and big bang and the laws of physics and your claims,
since what you say does not jive with what I have read.

Anyway, none of this belongs here, and your tude remains
one that brings forth the response of disinterest.

So please do not attempt to hijack more threads that are
on other issues. "Bump" up the existing threads if you
really think your posts are so glorious.

Moderators please note, and feel free to comment.

Maybe you can move the four or so posts over to
some more appropriate thread, like the one that
Sven linked to somewhere.

(And maybe we could have one or two threads on
this forum that discuss C, relativity, time, space,
physics and YEC views.)

Afaik, proper protocol is to keep a discussion on its
proper thread, and "bump" it if you want to remake
a point.

And if I ignore your stuff (as I do one or two others)
then you may gloat on that thread a dozen times.
Have fun. I probably will respond to what I consider
real issues, like your apparent view above that the Big
Bang/singularity proposed event has only a limited
disruption of known physics and we can nicely place
the resulting moment of change to current laws.

Sven, I will not respond to any more questions on this issue
on this thread, which is about Bible issues. Kapiche ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Sven

Such as?

:huh:
You mean apart from radiometric dating, models of the "life" of suns, and the loads of evidence for the Big Bang?

I don't care about quotes and discussions - I care about evidence.

If you mean my attitude of taking you to task about your words, I can understand that you may have a problem with this.

It was only one post. And there's no need to bump the thread, others have just posted recently in it.

And maybe you could use the report button or the Problems&Complaints forum for things like this.

Isn't it strange that it's only the easy things which are considered "real issues" by some people?