Skip to comments.$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Posted on 03/26/2007 12:18:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Sorry, but that's just not true. Fascists did at times flaunt their religion and and make pious-sounding statements from time to time, but it was secondary to their appeal. Hitler posed for some photo ops in churches and referred to Christ a few times, but these made up a small part of his overall message. Mussolini also generally supported Catholic Church, but this was also a tiny part of his overall message, which was primarily about Italian nationalism and violent opposition to communism and the so-called "excesses" of laissez-faire capitalism.
I'm not a creationist. In fact, I am a strong opponent of creationism and ID, but I also am a friend of truth. To say that fascism is "based" on strong appeal religious values is simply not true. Fascists did make some appeals to religion, but these appeals were incidental and not part of their core message.
My post stated "...,among other things,..." which is different from what you posted.
"You obviously missed my post where I state up front that I am a Christian and send my kids to a Christian school."
Sending to your kids to a Christian school no more makes you a Christian than standing in your garage makes you a car.
Unfortunately, there are many Christians - like you - too ignorant of both world views to understand that they are mutually exclusive.
But by all means, don't let the truth of Christ's claims (I doubt you even know them, you sound like a CiNO) get in the way of blind loyalty to your evolutionary masters.
As far as calling me "medieval", I've been called worse by better people than you.
Good luck Neanderthal man.
Excellent. Wish I could go.
All I can say is you sure need to up your Thorazine.
Then you didn't even read what your source wrote, because in post 133 you said,
"If the speed of light varies, the absolute distance varies, but the time required to traverse the distance remains the same."
This is after you said that *I* needed to read the article in post 109.
"But the physical constants are interrelated. If the speed of light changes significantly, the universe becomes something entirely unrecognizable."
Now you need training on what the term 'physical constant' means. If they are truly a 'physical constant', then they don't change regardless of the change in the speed of light. If they change with the speed of light, then by definition they aren't a 'physical constant'.
You are floundering around so badly, yet don't have the sense to stop. Next thing you know you'll be appealing to creationists to support your ideas. ;-)
So, can we now say that you take the ICR's word on creation?
Or is that only when they agree with what you already believe?
You really should quit while you're behind. :-)
Again, the *distance* between the supernova and the gas cloud is unaffected by the changes in the speed of light. It is the transit time that would be affected, not the *distance*. If you cannot understand that fact, you cannot understand the subject.
The article stated as much when it said:
"Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down."
As documented in js1138's post #25.
" And get this in your meat filled head: 'light year' is defines as a distance measurement."
Yes, that's correct. The *distance* does not change. It is the transit time that changes with a changing speed of light, as Setterfield explains so well here:
"You are not an authority in such matters and what you do post is nonsense of the lowest order. That's the miracle of the internet. Never before has the ignorance of the few been able to be propagated to so many."
There has certainly been a lot of nonsense posted, but it hasn't been me posting it.
What is nonsense is saying that the speed of light has any relation to trignometric distances and that trigonometric distance measures have any meaning in the speed of light argument.
It's like saying that the distance to NYC depends on how fast you drive.
No, the lag time is what is observed now. The transit time would have been shorter in the past when the speed of light was faster. The *distance* remains the same. As the speed of light slows, the *distance* remains the same but the transit time slows. Were the speed of light 12x faster over the entire course of the event from occurrence to observation on earth, the lag time between the supernova and the gas cloud illumination would be only 1 month but the distance would remain at 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles. It's not that difficult to understand.
"Why? Because it took light from the supernova 1 year to cross a certain angle in the sky and that light made that crossing from the supernova to the gas cloud in the distant past.
No, a slower current speed of light means that the *distance* takes 1 year to register at current light speed. This says nothing about the transit time for that same distance when the event occurred. You really should at least try to understand Setterfield's explanation here:
You might also try reading some of the explanations for other common fallacious arguments against cdk while you are there.
"Therefore, the speed of light back then is the same as it is now and is a complee and total refutation to any claim that the universe is 6-10K years old. QED. I know you will not understand this. The kids on the short school bus didn't have to do geometry.
Again, the distance in meters, miles or any other pure distance measure between the supernova and the gas cloud and the separation of the light rays traveling to earth does not change with a higher historical speed of light. As the speed of light slows, however it takes longer for those light rays to travel that distance. This shows up as the 1 year lag time at current speeds. Were the speed of light 12x faster than current from occurence to observation, the lag time would be observed as 1 month rather than one year but the *distance* would remain the same. The quoted source says that and is correct.
This demonstrates that you cannot make an assumption about the historical speed of light using the current c and a distance measure. You will always reach an incorrect conclusion.
I take rational argument wherever it occurs. Setterfield is such an obvious fraud that he embarrasses creation scientists.
Curiosity has already refuted your allegation, but you still didn't answer the question I posed: why is your assertion that AiG should have no freedom of speech anything but fascism?
I posted an answer and I don't agree that it was at all refuted.
...and I still think that's a strange question given that fascism, among other things, makes strong appeals to religious values as well as nationalistic fervor to control it's people.
Wouldn't "Creationist" describe you better than "non-evolutionist" or "anti-evolutionist?"
When you begin to use the labels placed on you by those who disagree with you, you have already lost.
It's also good that the people who built this didn't try to do it in the former USSR or modern day China. They would be tortured or killed by enlightened atheists!
The odd thing is; the Bible contains no claims of a "flat earth." It does describe a "circle" or "Sphere" that God "hung upon nothing."
Your post just made me cry. All my tax money spent on education (yours) wasted...absolutely wasted.
How DARE you think for yourself! Don't you know that USMMA_83 chooses what all of us are to believe??!!
...if believing that the Bible is the unvarnished Truth means being cast amongst the 'foolish' -- then I am more than happy to be cast amongst the 'foolish'...
Jesus said that Christians should expect that to happen.
Maybe the knuckleheads on BOTH sides of the argument can learn something from this. I won't hold my breath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.