GMS Reasons for Deconversion - My Answers to Some

Spooks or Angels Diagnosed a Brain Tumour + Tangent on Jimmy Akin's Other Positions · GMS Reasons for Deconversion - My Answers to Some · Language is Not a Product of Evolution (with JuLingo)

I have personal experience favourable to essential oils, like tea tree for scabies and geranium for shingles. But that won't cut with him, and is outside the main topic.

This Is Exactly Why I'm an Atheist
Genetically Modified Skeptic, 9 Febr. 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7urcE4IwMf0

1:39 13.8 billion years ... anything about "distant starlight"?

Jimmy Akin in analysing the voices of a woman who diagnosed her brain tumour and brain stem infection, enounced the principle that "it appears they were spirits of people having worked at Great Ormond Street Hospital, and we stay with what appears, unless there is a specific reason to discard it" (which for the typical atheist would be spirits don't exist, never mind a guardian angel of a child dying there could also have truthfully said having worked there).

Now, what are the appearances of the universe?

We are still. The universe moves around us.

Well, Jimmy Akin replied with "we have no good scientific reason to say inner ears [and eyes] mean we are still" ... which is like saying "we have no good scientific reason to take appearances at face value" ... taking appearances at face value, which as a Christian back then you were theoretically able to, you have no way of determining even that alpha Centauri is as far as 4 light years.

Why? Because, if so, the 0.76 arc seconds back and forth each year would be a proper movement of the star. Or actually, so would the aberration, and the "parallax" being measured in relation to it, the aberration of c. 20 arc second back and forth each year would be the proper proper movement, performed by an angel. But even if one singled out parallax, or if one took instead aberration value as parallax, the distance (or the other distance by "aberration / parallax") would only be trigonometrically attainable by the supposition that the earth is moving. Why? If the earth stands still annually and the sun moves, in relation to the zodiac, this means we have one angle at earth between the two extreme positions of the star. Only if the sun stands still and the earth moves do we instead have two angles and one known distance (earth to earth). On the geocentric view, certainly the same distance would be known as a distance sun to sun, but that distance would be outside the triangle, and irrelevant, unless you assumed the star was moving not only in time with the sun, but also keeping pace.

Now, 13.8 billion light years is itself obviouly not itself directly calculated by parallax trigonometry. But if you are familiar with the expression "von Neumann chain" you can see that between fairly elementary and undisputable stuff, like the moon measured from two distant places on earth, like Africa and Brazil, and the measures involved in "13.8 billion light years" the question of parallax trigonometry is one of the links in the von Neumann chain.

If Geocentrism is true, it's the broken link. All links up to it are sound, all links including itself and any beyond are unsound.

The original meaning of the expression "von Neumann chain" is about the measuring of very small sizes, like nano-meters and anything leading down to them from normal microscopes.

Makary Metzger

13.8 Billion years is a measurement of time, 13.8 billion light years is a measurement of distance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@makarymetzger2627 Indeed.

However, the ONLY method by which they pretend to have the measure of time that is 13.8 years is that they pretend things have expanded from a singularity to a radius of 13.8 billion light years, and that we see stars from 13.8 billion years ago.

This is by the way the reason some pretend the universe is even older than 13.8 billion years : it would have taken time for the stars that far away from us to get that far away from the singularity.

So, the pretence of a 13.8 billion years or older universe stands on the assumption of having measured a length of 13.8 billion years, which stands on the assumption, as explained, of Heliocentrism.

The Real Cat of 2020

@hglundahl What are your qualifications? Why should anyone listen to you over experts? Where is your evidence and work citations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheRealCatof I think we can first of all mention what the argument was.

GMS claimed he had learned to measure the distance to stars and to from that measure time from speed of light, i e minimal age = the time it took for that light to reach earth.

This poses the question, very legitimate, on whether that distance is really known or not.

If it isn't, that time isn't known either.

If Geocentrism is true, the distance isn't known, since trigonometry from parallax enters into it.

Now, you deflected from these very legitimate ARGUMENTS by appealing to QUALIFICATIONS.

I didn't claim anyone should listen to ME for my qualifications, I claim one should take the argument. Yes, this means I claim argument trumps qualification.

The Real Cat of 2020

@hglundahl If you don't understand how the distance of stars is measured, then I suggest you open a textbook on the subject and learn. Your "argument" isn't worth entertaining, as the subject is already decided.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheRealCatof I happen to understand it better than you have shown that you do.

@TheRealCatof In case you doubt my understanding of star distances depending on parallax, therefore on Heliocentrism, check this reference I found:

space dot com : What Is Parallax?
By Tereza Pultarova, Jim Lucas published January 11, 2022
https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html

"In the late 1830s, Bessel’s contemporaries and rivals Wilhelm Struve and Thomas Henderson provided one parallax measurement each, bringing the total number to three. By the early 20th century, the list of stars with measured parallaxes grew to a few hundred, mostly thanks to the work of Dutch astronomer Jacobus Kapteyn."

...

"The parallax method, however, is only the first rung on the cosmic distance ladder, a succession of methods that astronomers use to estimate distances of objects in the universe. At some point, stars and galaxies get too distant to have their parallax measured even by the most sensitive of available technologies. But astronomers can use insights derived from the parallax measurements of the closer stars to estimate distances of those more distant."

"For example, by measuring the distances to a number of nearby stars, astronomers have been able to establish relationships between a star’s color and its intrinsic brightness, the brightness it would appear to have if viewed from a standard distance. These stars then become what astronomers call "standard candles." By comparing the color and spectrum of stars to the "standard candles", astronomers can determine the star's intrinsic brightness, said Mark Reid, an astronomer at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "

"By comparing the intrinsic brightness to the star's apparent brightness, we can get a good measure of the star's distance by applying the 1/r^2 rule. The 1/r^2 rule states that the apparent brightness of a light source is proportional to the square of its distance."

1:39 bis.

I looked at the video and it seems there is a theory the amount of redshift gives a good clue to the distance.

I would argue, this would at least have to be calibrated by examples of stars at known distances showing different redshifts - so, if the distance is misknown or unknown, the redshift scale is miscalibrated or pseudo-calibrated.

5:15 "Being homosexual" is sometimes expressed without sin. Both celibates, like my friend the "Abbey Roads" blogger Terry Nelson, and people actually married to someone of the opposite sex, like my countryman Svante Pääbo (who thought he was exclusively homosexual prior to meeting his wife, and yes, they have at least one child).

Item should be reconsidered.

It's like saying, just because stealing is a sin, cleptomaniacs show God programming people to sin. You can express cleptomania without actually stealing.

Makary Metzger

Stealing something is bad, because it harms another person, the person you stole from. In this case, it is advisable for cleptomaniacs to stop stealing, because them acting upon their desires results in suffering for others.

Being homosexual does not result in suffering. So, why is it bad? 😊

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@makarymetzger2627 Neither being cleptomaniac nor being homosexual results in suffering.

If the cleptomaniac steals, it results in suffering by the stealing, namely the loss of what someone had counted on having. If the homosexual contracepts - and that covers much of his sex life if he leads "a homosexual lifestyle" - it results in the suffering of an aging society. Btw, it is not just "homosexuality" but all contraceptive sex that is classified as "sin against nature" meaning sin against contraception and pregnancy and parenting.

6:25 While the shape of the eye may not be irreducibly complex, the genome for the retina is.

6:44 I noted that you never came to claims of explaining human language as emerging by evolution from ape communications.

Perhaps this was never your focus?

12:53 "assertions of supernatural explainations could never be falsified or studied"

What about situations where it is intuitively superfluous, as opposed to such where it isn't?

I speak of individual events, or sets of individual events, obviously.

13:03 "while refraining from exploring supernatural ideas"

Since?

"science has made enormous progress"

About what types of truths?

What about the progress before the key date, whichever one you would promote?

13:07 continuously advancing technology"

So, what about technological progress done by "pre-scientific" thinkers who did not refrain from exploring the supernatural?

I bet you are happier for your bread or other cereals than for your cell phone, and for bread, ploughing, sowing, watering (including but not always limited to rain water) are done by methods known since 1000s of years.