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
From where I'm sitting, your comments are akin to Holocaust denial.
The Nazis didn't want the Jews to escape (leave Nazi Germany). They demanded other countries to round them up for slaughter.
The inquisition was bad, but not quite the same as the Holocaust.
However; if not for the inquisition and the Mongols attacking the Moslems, Europe would never had pushed Islam back out.
The Holocaust had no such redeeming qualities.
Have you any idea of what passes for an "Edjukashun" in our "Publick Skoolz" system these days? I can assure you, it is NOT Godly!
Sultan Beyazid II of the Ottoman Empire sent ships to take as many of the Jews as were willing to the Ottoman Empire. He comemented that "the Catholic monarch Ferdinand was wrongly considered as wise, since he impoverished Spain by the expulsion of the Jews, and enriched Turkey."
Indeed the Jewish population was welcomed into the Ottoman Empire and greatly strengthened it. If anything, the Inquisition strengthened the Moslems.
But then, it was hardly the first or last time the Ottoman Empire came to the rescue of Jews in Europe. When Constantinople fell in 1454, the Jews welcomed the Ottoman Empire. In the mid-16th century Suleyman the Magnificent, among other deeds, rescured a group of Jews being held by the pope, by declaring them to be Ottoman citizens.
Up until several hundred years ago, Jews were generally safer in Islamic nations than Christian. It's only in the last 60 that Christian nations have generally been safer.
By the way, the Mongol empire was gone by the early 15th century. The height of Islamic expansion in Central Europe was the 16th and 17th century, when they were twice stopped at Vienna.
Considering what originated in Austria in the first half of the 20th century, maybe it would have been better had the Ottoman Empire captured Vienna.
You really are math-dense. The third leg of the triangle between the supernova and the gas emission it induced one year later arises from the speed of light being the same 170,000 years ago as it is today.
Now, lets say the speed of light was much faster in the past than today. That means that the distance for the third leg of this triangle would have to be much greater than 1 light year long. That would mean that the distances between here and there are much greater than 170,000 light years. So why would it take 170,000 light years for the light to reach us here, but only 1 year for the light to travel at a much higher speed between the two astronomical objects? Mathematically, there is no solution. Either that, or you must reject the 170,000 light year distance you so readily embraced a few posts ago.
Setterfeild's theories have been debunked by others before. Intersting observations, but bad technique. Cherry picked data is being used to support a nonsense theory. That's why the WWW is his publishing medium.
But it is strange you are a fan of his. His work does not support an Earth centered universe. Do you always contradict yourself?
BS. If that were the case, the illumination of the gas cloud would have happened a lot sooner. You can't draw a triangle where the sum of two sides is greater than the third side. Setterfield is simply wrong.
Not necessarily. Maybe the photons reaching earth were all created at the same time the star was.
Of course they were. Or maybe the universe was actually created billions of years ago.
Ah, the fallacy of argument from ridicule.
Common when there are no others.
This is your constant error. The source said, and I agreed, that the distance is the same no matter what c was when the supernova exploded. I have posted this several times, yet it continues to escape your understanding.
From post # 25:
"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."
Are you still confused by the source's use of the term 'light-year' as a distance measure? Do you not see how he equates 170,000 light-years with 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles? It is a pure distance measure and has nothing at all to do with elapsed time.
"Now, lets say the speed of light was much faster in the past than today. That means that the distance for the third leg of this triangle would have to be much greater than 1 light year long."
Nope. The distance is the same regardless of the speed of light. The transit time would be shorter with a faster speed of light but the distance would not change.
"That would mean that the distances between here and there are much greater than 170,000 light years. So why would it take 170,000 light years for the light to reach us here, but only 1 year for the light to travel at a much higher speed between the two astronomical objects?"
You are confusing light-year as a measure of distance and light-year as a measure of time. They cannot be conflated. Setterfield explained this, if you had read it.
"Mathematically, there is no solution. Either that, or you must reject the 170,000 light year distance you so readily embraced a few posts ago."
Light-year as a distance measure is not the problem. Light-year as a *time* measure cannot be inferred. There is no problem and mathematics has nothing to do with it. The distance is the same, the transit time would be different. You are confusing light-year when commonly used as a measure of distance and light-year as a measure of time. The source that was quoted was using light-year purely as a measure of distance, not of time.
"Setterfeild's theories have been debunked by others before. Intersting observations, but bad technique. Cherry picked data is being used to support a nonsense theory. That's why the WWW is his publishing medium."
Lots of people like to say that because they don't like the implications of his claims. Had you bothered to research this at all, you would have found that he documented the same effect when he included the outliers previously excluded. Also, his work is not based solely on historical c measures, but you would know that had you spent some time reading his work.
"But it is strange you are a fan of his. His work does not support an Earth centered universe."
Please support this statement since both geometric and relativistic models are indistinguishable where the heliocentric vs geocentric discussion are concerned. I think you are making philosophical assumptions that are not uniquely supported by the evidence again.
No, you are simply wrong.
A faster speed of light means that 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles would be covered in less than one year when the supernova exploded. As the speed of light slows, it still must cover 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles and that takes 1 year at current speeds. When the event happened, it may have taken 10 minutes, but the distance remains at 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you?
What specifically is wrong with the article published by the Institute for Creation Research. Are they not Christian enough for you, or is their some logical or mathematical error that you would like to point out?
Setterfield’s model is not based solely on one uncorrected Cassini measurement.
For the response to Aardsma’s article, click here:
I recommend that you look at Setterfield’s site for rebuttals before posting such old articles.
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.