Secondary effects like this can actually appear to move faster than light speed.

Imagine if you had an infinitely powerful lantern just a foot across, and a opaque screen around it which exposes only half of the light. and spins once per second, creating... a rotating lighthouse effectively.

Now fly out 1 light year from that. At this distance, the rotating pattern of light and shadow is "moving" at 6.28 light years per second.

Actually, the number of Planets discovered currently stands at over 700 (and counting) Also, they have identified some which are in fact, like ours, in the "comfort zone." Sadly the closest found so far is 21 light years away which, at approx. 147 trillion miles, is at the moment rather a problem.
Regarding your "fine tuner" argument; Such is the fine tuning of your "creator" that 98% of all life that has existed, is extinct. Which, apart from being incredibly incompetent and wasteful, points logically to random
selection/evolution. Also, your "a painting therefore a painter" point is a non-sequitur for if there were a "fine tuner," there would, by your own argument, have to be a creator of the fine tuner and so an inevitable regression. No, Science has thrown off the shackles of myths and gods. Had they not, our lives would be controlled by theocratic dictators and we would still believe earth was the centre of the universe. We no longer use the god of the gaps argument. We may never know all the answers but, just because we don't, we no longer lazily, ignorantly, insist that; "Hallelujah, God must have done it."

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

I garner hostility here because most of the sifters here grew up in Christian households and they've rebelled against their parents and God and they don't want to hear anything about Him. This is their sanctuary where they enjoy mocking God and Christians without any dissenting voices. I'm here because I care but I wouldn't be here unless God told me to be here. I've tried to leave a few times and He keeps sending me back. Although not so much lately.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

...Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two ways, and only two ways, to know truth. Either you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being reveals it to you. Since humans are not omnipotent it is impossible to know truth unless it is revealed to us by an omnipotent being, ie God. If you think there is another way to know truth, name it. Otherwise what is there to debate? If you don't think it's possible to know truth then you don't know anything. If you don't know anything then you have nothing to talk about.

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

Could God reveal Himself to you in a way that you could be absolutely certain of it? It doesn't matter what we can prove to one another; God could sufficiently prove Himself to me (He has) or to you and it would transcend every piece of rationale you've offered.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt?

I know it for certain because God has made me certain. I've seen things only an omnipotent God could do, such as arranging and timing circumstances which would require Him to be in complete and precise control of everything and everyone. Satan certainly can generate profound spiritual experiences (and blindness), which is why he is able to deceive the whole world.

I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)

God doesn't need us, woo. He had perfect love within His Trinity relationships before He created anything. He doesn't demand that we worship Him because He is egotistical, He commands us to worship Him to put us in right relationship with Him as the supreme good and sustainer of all things. He is the only appropiate object for our adoration, which also puts us in right relationship with other people. Human beings are built to worship; that is why the world is littered with the carcasses of false idols. I don't just mean pagan deities, I mean power, money, fame and all of the other things human beings lust and pine away for. The thing man most likes to worship is himself. Humanists worship the intellect, and the accomplishments of human civilization. These too are idols. Everyone has something they worship, when God is the only appropiate object of our worship. The love that we have to give to all of those things comes from Him, and that is why we return it to Him, which in turn leads to greater love for all people and things. Every other kind of worship is selfish and ultimately spiritual dead(and destructive). Thus this command to worship Him alone (we were created to be in relationship with Him) is for our growth, our protection, and so that we can be who He created us to be.

Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.

How do you know that?

The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!

The explanation you provide only pushes the "absurdity" back one step; you're still left with the same problem as you say I have. Yet, it is not a problem to believe in something eternal. To believe something came from nothing wouldbe the absurdity. Do you believe the Universe is eternal?

We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

If God is perfect, which He is, then He isn't limited. His joy never ends; it is the limitation of the human intellect that prevents you from understanding an infinite being, so you have devised a scenario based on those limitations where you impose a limitation on Gods experience so that He is forced to "commit suicide" in order to have new and enjoyable experiences. An infinite being experiences infinite joy. A perfect being will always be perfect. God doesn't evolve; a perfect being has no need to evolve or ever become "basic". He is eternally perfect, and we are not.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Yes, the God Abraham is the God Jesus is referring to. The error is that you think you understand God better than Jesus did. Jesus is the perfect representation of God; His exact image. If you've seen Jesus you have seen the Father. They are one and the same in terms of their character and every other attribute. You don't see that because you don't understand the scriptures. Jesus did, which is why He said things like this:

John 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

The atheist version of studying the bible is to look for something that seems to contradict the claims of Christians so that they can throw it in the garbage and be done with it. You would see the same God that Jesus represents in the Old Testament if you understood the history that it presents.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Go ask the criminals on death row how they feel about the judge and prosecutor who sent them there. Does that mean they don't deserve to be there?

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

God didn't ask Abraham to do anything that He wasn't willing to do Himself, but unlike Abraham God did sacrifice His son. This is what I mean when I say that you you're not understanding what you're reading. The sacrifice of Issac is a picture of Jesus Christ. You don't see these things because you don't know what to look for.

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

Here is the difference..the God you describe wants to "help" you out of a situation that it created because of its own limitations and need for self-gratification. It is not only responsible for evil, but it does nothing about it. The God you describe is limited, selfish and immoral.

The way you describe my God is a strawman argument in itself. It is not an accurate representation of the biblical account. The God of the Universe created a perfect Universe and endowed His creatures with free will. The creatures He created freely chose to do evil and this is what brought sin and death into the world. This is the reason for the imperfection, and God, at great personal cost to Himself, restored and reconciled His creation through Jesus Christ.

You won't be able to understand the bible without Gods help:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's why I suggested you read the gospel of John, if you really do want to understand God accurately, and pray for assistance.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0),

It's a false dichotomy. What you're describing when you refer to God is the gnostic demiurge, which bears no resemblence to the God of the bible. There are no opposing forces to be spoken of because there is no actual duality. God is only light and the only thing He is attached to is His children, because He freely loves them. He is the only power in the Universe. Satan has a paper kingdom; it is just shadows on the wall. In any case, you can't escape the corruption caused by your sin nature. If you shatter a mirror, no matter how well you glue it back together it will never reflect purely again. It doesn't need to be repaired, it needs to be replaced. This is why Jesus said you need to be born again:

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

When you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, He will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and make you a new person. You are spiritually dead in sins and transgressions, but the Holy Spirit will regenerate your spirit and cleanse you from all of your sin.

while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.

Satan desired one thing, which was to be God. He became prideful because of his great beauty and intellect and based on his ignorance of Gods true nature, he tried to form a rebellion against God to replace Him and was kicked out of Heaven. This is essentially the process you are describing for those who believe they are God. All Satan is trying to do is duplicate his errors in you and as many other people as he can so that he can destroy them before his time comes. He can't strike back at God directly so he goes after his creatures. Satan is an imitator; he is a potter just as God is a potter. He is doing everything possible to shape and mold you into his image and character, and he has entire universes of deception waiting for you, filled with as much "secret knowledge and wisdom" as you desire. He has a door for every kind of person, every kind of philosophy; his is the broad road that leads to destruction. Jesus said enter through the narrow gate:

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.

You surely prefer the idol you have created in your own mind, because that is the god who allows you to do whatever you want. That's all this is really about. Do you know what Jesus said the reason is that men won't come to God?:

John 3:19-21

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

You don't get to decide who God is, and just because you don't think you should be accountable for what you've done in this life doesn't mean you won't be.

For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

God loves you and I love you, and that's why I am telling you all of this. The highest state is the lowest state:

Mat 23:11 The greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

Take your time. God bless.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

First if your reliance on Aristotelian Logic to attack my Dialectic argument. When I said you were using the language with which I described to counter instead of addressing the underlying concept it was to this I was alluding (not clearly enough it seems).
Philosophers (good ones anyway) have largely up on traditional Aristotelian logic as a means to extrapolate objective truth because it functions only upon linguistic syntax. The very fact that such a fundamental assertion as "nothing is true" is mutually contradictory as a prime example of this. The language we use to describe and frame the problem simultaneously limits our ability to comprehend it. As I suspect you well know deeper conceptual matters are often too deep to be fully expressed by mere syntax based language.
Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt? I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)


Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

R>=0 (R= distance between two points)



The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0), while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Or if you want to put your scientific head on for a moment they represent the Left and Right hand brain (all truths are relative, one can approach this from a purely psychological/neuroscience position and argue the same case just with less colourful imagery ).

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.


For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

There's a greater chance that one (or more) of the stars within about 6000 light years or so could give off a gamma ray burst that would wipe out any life in the solar system, no matter where we hid it. It's been postulated the previous-to-the-Yucatan-asteroid large scale die-offs could have happened due to GRB.

@shinyblurry

I have a concession, perhaps a confession to make. An admission if you will. I accept your thesis: every scientist on earth, more or less (except a few religiously devout who still see the truth for what it is) are lying, or they are caving to the pressure of their lying peers, or they have been duped somehow to lie to you. In reality the universe is about 10000 years old, give or take. But all these scientists are, for whatever reason, contributing deliberately or undeliberately to the false claim that the universe and earth is many orders of magnitude older, something like billions of years old. Its all lies. Just about every scientist for the last 200 years have been contributing to this lie, and alternative ideas are being supressed for some dogmatic reason.

Lets suppose all that is true.

Suppose that all these lies, published in peer-review, has been backed up by equally lying peers.

Fine.

I give you that point

I dont think its logical, in fact I think its an insane conspiracy theory, but nonetheless, I concede the entire point. Right now.

How about that shit, eh?

Theres just still one problem for creationism, and its fucking everywhere, its called EVIDENCE. Like maybe you are reading this on a smartphone, with a GPS in it. That GPS unit is communicating right now with 2 sattelites, in freaking ORBIT, triangulating your position right now. Thats some insane science at work right there, but actually thats not the crazy part: The crazy part is that it wouldnt work at all, unless the people who designed that GPS system understood Relativity. Thats right, Einsteinian freaking relativity. The satellites, and their speed relative to earth, would actually give the wrong postion if they relied on Newtons laws.

THOSE VERY SAME principles and knowledge actually is used to tell us how far away stuff in the universe is. some stuff are actually (As in your-GPS-can-ACTUALLY-tell-you-exactly-where-you-are kind of "actually")really fucking far atway, like billions of light-YEARS. which means the light left from other parts of the universe literally BILLIONS of years ago, before they reached our telescopes. Like Bill Nye explained, a smoke detector works on principles that we understand about the half-lives of atoms, again the same shit used to understand the age of fossils and shit we find in the ground. the LCD screen you are likely looking at is an innovation that comes from understanding wavelenghts of light, again used to measure the distance of galaxies that emitted light billions of years ago.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

That's incorrect. We have radio telescope images of the galactic center which is 26000 light years away. Second, the estimates are based not on what we can't see, but the percentage that we can see and then averaging for the rest.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

Actually, O3 type stars can go nova in about 3 million years time, according to that model.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

You can't argue that the galaxy is that old because the stars are that old, when that is the thing in dispute. The argument is intending to prove the stars couldn't be that old in the first place, thus proving the galaxy is not that old.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

According to

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html

"Obviously, Davies never went SNR hunting in a galactic environment, but I have. For one thing, an SNR becomes essentially invisible, even in a non-crowded environment, within 1,000,000 year tops, maybe less, depending on the specifics of the supernova and environment. But in practice they become essentially invisible long before."

So, they can be visible up to 1,000,000 years, yet we don't find even one at the maximum range of expansion that we are able to detect (or anywhere near it). We should be seeing the entire range of the spectrum, but the biggest we can find (according to their model), is 20000 years old. So this evidence doesn't hold up and the point remains.

Old hat.

"We cannot observe supernova remnants across our entire galaxy – basically nebulae. Supernova events we can see across the visible universe, but the actual gaseous remnants are much fainter because they are more diffuse. Because of dust and gas in the way, we cannot see all the objects in our own Galaxy. Probably the farthest we can see into the galaxy is maybe to a distance of 10,000 light-years. The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across. Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

So now, we need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

Alright, you asked for it, so you got it.

I'm not going to argue against Bill Nye and try to discredit the evidence of radiometric dating. Instead, I will present some compelling evidence for a young Earth/Universe. I'll start off with this one:

1. Supernovas

When stars explode they leave behind SNRs, or 'supernova remnants'. The remnant is a radially expanding cloud of gas and debris, and based on the average expansion speed, we can determine based on that speed how long it would take for an SNR to reach certain expansion diameters.

In 30 years it is predicted the cloud would be about 13 light years across. In 125,000 years it would be 250 light years and in 6 million years it would be 1500 light years across. 6 million years of expansion is about the limit our current instrumentation will allow us to observe; after that it would be too diluted to observe.

Looking around the galaxy, we should be seeing SNRs of many different sizes, from 6 million years of expansion to 5 million to 1 million to a few hundred thousand years, down to recent times of the supernovas we have observed in our recent history. We should be seeing a whole spectrum of sizes, but we don't. In fact, there is no SNR that we have observed which exceeds around 7 thousand years of expansion. Occams razor again demands that we use the simplest explanation, which is that these stars went supernova very recently and are not billions of years old.

Further, we should be observing a certain quantity of SNRs in the galaxy. Based on the average of around 4 per year, in only a billion years we should expect to see around 7200 of them. On the other side, if it has only been 7000 years we should expect to see 125 of them. What we actually observe is around 200 SNRs which is a lot closer to 7000 years than 1 billion.. Occams razor says the simplest explanation is that the galaxy is young.

Sorry, perhaps I should of worded that point differently, I meant that a ppi that allows for retina (android equiv) is sufficient, after this point we need to compare screens on more noticeable differences. The S3 and the iPhone5 are both at 306ppi, the differences is screen size/resolution, colour, rendering algorithms and screen tech (pentile vs IPS). Which is a preference, I have no problem with you liking larger phones, this is just not a point of advantage or disadvantage you can target as a phone fault, it is a user choice. Some people also prefer looking at over-saturated colours, they find them more "real" or "vivid" etc, that's all fine.

The other points I think we can leave as is.

Yes iTunes is a heaping pile of shit, I'm not about to defend it, I got my N7 with Jellybean and saw how refined the Play experience is, switching accounts on the fly, loads content for that account etc. It was simply put, light years ahead of the syncing bullshit that Apple puts me through. In fact the N7 is really the first Android device I've been actively recommending to people, it is undeniably a solid good product, I can not fault it (other than lacklustre 3rd party support but I won't be blaming Android for that).

But really, these days, you can ignore iTunes and I'm guessing a lot of people do or are content with what it does. To stick with my mum, her iPad has never plugged in to a PC (except when she couldn't do OTA updates but she didn't have to deal with that), she does everything on the device. In fact, she wouldn't go near a computer, Apple or otherwise, she has absolutely no interest in them fullstop. My mother-in-law is the same, it took me about a year to convince her to pick-up an iPad, now she does her shopping online, uses email etc but she has no desire to touch anything else and still won't step out of the apps she knows. These two weren't a market just a few years ago, you wouldn't even dream of bothering with them.

I don't know what it is that makes it so appealing but Apple seems to and they focus all their attention on it. I know also this is anecdotal (but you don't have to look far to see more). Everything you see isn't aimed at us, I find most Apple's marketing over the top and cheesy, this is why I can find this video funny even if I do prefer Apple products, it just isn't for us. The "lens...cover" line had me in tears.

I know we like to think we can understand how non-tech people work but we simply don't, I have been teaching the basics to people for a long time and I'll still freely admit I'm still bewildered by how little people actually understand. They're not stupid people, we just take it all for granted, it is a different mindset entirely and is why the tech world has such a hard time understanding Apple. For instance, do you know how useful iOS is to the accessibly challenged? It is light years ahead of Android or any body else, it isn't even a choice for this market, no matter what the other phones offer. iOS is the only realistic option.

I've probably gone a tangent here but it all comes back to why Apple is what it is and why I try to defend against attacks that compare it at a tech race level. I don't want the world to go back to what it was, there is room in the market for the needs of everyone to be met.

>> ^spoco2:

@yellowc A fine rebuttal sir, except lacking in a great deal of thinking things through.
First you say the screen on the phone is the best due to colour, ppi and fonts, and then say that ppi doesn't matter. (Higher resolution in a smaller screen = higher ppi) Personally? I think this pixel density bullshit is some finely crafted bullshit by Apple to create a metric that no-one cared about before, and really kind of shouldn't, but they tout it because they like to make sure they win it... so, their 4" screen with its weird 1136 x 640 resolution is apparently better than a 4.64" screen with 1280x720 (so native 720p HD)? I too wasn't sold on larger screens. My last phone was 3.5" just like the current iPhone, and I thought I wouldn't want a phone with a larger screen as then it wouldn't fit in my pocket, and would be a pain in the butt. Then I tried on the Galaxy Nexus in store and found it fit in my pocket better (by being thinner) and was soooo much nicer for viewing content on than 3.5"
I said myself that I'd only ever used NFC once, don't much care about it. Can see that it could be cool having stickers/pads in your car and on your bedside table to automatically put your phone into various modes based on what you're doing, but I've cared so little I haven't ordered the tags to try it.
Video calling... who actually uses it? As I said, we've had it here in Australia for 9 years. Most feature and smart phones have supported it. I've been able to do it for years. Have I once felt the need? Nope.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with iOS as an operating system, what I'm saying is that it LOOKS amazingly old, feels really quite antiquated. I look forward to Apple redesigning it and making it fresh again. Without being an Android fanboy, I find the look and design of ICS and Jellybean Android to be so much more fresh than iOS. This is nothing to do with functionality, just look, something which Apple could change so easily, it's odd that they are letting it get so stale.
In terms of Apple 'understanding' the regular Joe... what I don't get is how such a large number of my friends have ended up completely wiping their entire iTunes library because of the insanely stupid way in which iTunes handles moving your device between computers and how it handles syncing them. That is not user friendly, has been going on for years, and yet never addressed.
Horses for courses. Look, there are plenty of reasons to go with an iDevice... but the ever burgeoning market share of Android (now more than Apple) demonstrates that not everyone wants to be locked into the Apple ecosphere.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?

Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.

If, for example, we imagine two infinitely sized parallel universes, one with 1 star per billion cubic light years and the other with 10 stars per billion cubic light years. We wouldn't say that one of the universes was 10 times bigger than the other - they are both infinite.

Fact 7: Distance between stars so great that no stars will touch in a galaxy-galaxy collision: We can measure the distance to "nearby" stars (up to 400 light years) by triangulating using earths different position as it orbits the sun. Stars further away is measured by their brightness. We can also obviously just see how far the stars are apart from eachother. So thats how we know the density, or lack thereof, of our galaxy.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Trust me, you folks across the pond are light-years ahead of Americans when it comes to reasonable expectations from the health-care system. A mistake many people make when dieting is losing weight too quickly. It's very easy to relapse because the change in eating habits has not been established. I find the apps for calorie counting very helpful. You can scan bar codes and import all the nutritional info. It's definitely more work entering home cooked meals though. Don't pay attention to all the fad diets, low carb, etc. Calorie counting is the most effective and sustainable way to lose weight and keep it off. Good luck. Never underestimate the power of your own mind.


I've been looking for a valid reason to justify getting a smartphone, thanks

Trust me, you folks across the pond are light-years ahead of Americans when it comes to reasonable expectations from the health-care system. A mistake many people make when dieting is losing weight too quickly. It's very easy to relapse because the change in eating habits has not been established. I find the apps for calorie counting very helpful. You can scan bar codes and import all the nutritional info. It's definitely more work entering home cooked meals though. Don't pay attention to all the fad diets, low carb, etc. Calorie counting is the most effective and sustainable way to lose weight and keep it off. Good luck. Never underestimate the power of your own mind.

>> ^rottenseed:

From my understanding of relativity and space-time continuum, 587 light years at close the speed of light wouldn't take very long to those on the space-craft because of "time-dilation". However, to those not on the spaceship...well, they'd be LONG gone. Somebody want to back me up on that? Maybe somebody smart?

That's true, but the problem is getting close enough to the speed of light to make an appreciable difference. I read in one of the science mags recently (SciAm or Science, I think) that traveling at 99.9% the speed of light would allow a crew to travel to the edge of the known universe and back in about 57 years, ship time. Not an exact quote, but it was something pretty insane like that. Unfortunately, we haven't even begun to dream of a propulsion system/energy source that would allow us to reach anywhere near that kind of speed.


Small moves. Let's get to Mars first.