Originally posted by @sonhouseYou have your head shoved so far up your your own butt it is impossible for you to understand.
So you have empirical proof with stopwatch that the formulae are wrong?
Do you have emperical evidence that the world was not created by God as described? Of course not.
I never claimed to have emperical evidence either. I was explaining a concept which your point of view can't allow you to understand.
Originally posted by @humyAll of those things no longer exist, wiped out by time. All you are left with is the equation.
No it wouldn't. You simply take into account all the main relevant factors, such as springboard kinematics, air friction etc, until your calculation is about right, no problem. None of us here makes the assumption that those relevant factors don't exist so there is no such assumptions we make for you to disagree with; only delusional fictitious ones you made up and we don't have.
Originally posted by @eladarUm ,ok . I get your example.
Sure I do. You don't understand the faulty assumptions being made.
Don't know if you read the example of the equation that models the height of a high jumper over time.
At time zero the height would be the height of a platform, yet if another person who saw the equation might try to figure out how much time the diver is in the air starting at the logical location, ground level.
Y'know I'm into spirituality and all that however if my views dont fit science then I feel compelled to review and CHANGE them.
Truth is that the Christian idea of 'God' and creation is way too basic. You do know what misinformation and disinformation is don't you?
They get good info and mix it in with dodgy info. Because the good info strikes a chord within us we often take the whole (book) to be true.
Originally posted by @eladarwhat on earth does that supposed to mean? You are speaking total gibberish yet again.
All of those things no longer exist, wiped out by time. All you are left with is the equation.
How is "springboard kinematics, air friction etc" "no longer exist, wiped out by time"?
You make no sense whatsoever.
Does YOUR version of the Bible say "Thy springboard kinematics, air friction etc, shall one day be wiped out by the mists of time and then all there shall be is equation"?
Originally posted by @humyWhat is that supposed to mean?
what on earth does that supposed to mean? You are speaking total gibberish yet again.
How is "springboard kinematics, air friction etc" "no longer exist, wiped out by time"?
You make no sense whatsoever.
Does YOUR version of the Bible say "Thy springboard kinematics, air friction etc, shall one day be wiped out by the mists of time and then all there shall be is equation"?
The platform from which the diver jumps was wiped out by time.
The other stuff you brought up is totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelI guess you don't get my example if you think science disproves the creation account.
Um ,ok . I get your example.
Y'know I'm into spirituality and all that however if my views dont fit science then I feel compelled to review and CHANGE them.
Truth is that the Christian idea of 'God' and creation is way too basic. You do know what misinformation and disinformation is don't you?
They get good info and mix it in with dodgy info. Because the good info strikes a chord within us we often take the whole (book) to be true.
My example demonstrates that people put their faith into science but can't see how it might be wrong. They can't see possible faulty assumptions.
Originally posted by @eladarplatform from which diver?
What is that supposed to mean?
The platform from which the diver jumps was wiped out by time.
How was it "wiped out"? By whom or what? Termites?
How do you know the platform isn't still there?
What has whether the platform the diver jumped from is still there got to do with the validity of the calculation of how long it took for the diver to dive?
You are STILL talking total gibberish.
Originally posted by @humyThe diver is a parallel example.
which platform?
How was it "wiped out"? By whom or what? Termites?
How do you know the platform isn't still there?
What has whether the platform the diver jumped from is still there got to do with the validity of the calculation of how long it took for the diver to dive?
The platform is the moment of creation.
The ground level in negative time represents the big bang.
The falling to the water is where we are at right now, and science is able to create the equation for predicting height at times.
Originally posted by @eladarwhy didn't you explain your analogy instead of just leaving it as total gibberish?
The diver is a parallel example.
The platform is the moment of creation.
The ground level in negative time represents the big bang.
The falling to the water is where we are at right now, and science is able to create the equation for predicting height at times.
Actually, it is STILL gibberish and you STILL make no point as its a completely stupid arbitrary bad analogy which doesn't explain anything wrong with the proof of the big bang. The evidence for the big bang still exists today.
Background radiation and red shift exist today and can be measured; these are prima facie evidence for what is called the Big Bang, though a better term for it would be inflation, and enable fairly accurate estimates for how long inflation has been going on (not to the day, of course, but within an order of magnitude).
The basic reasoning is simple: the universe is currently expanding, therefore the universe was smaller in the past. There must have been some point in time when the universe was half its current size. Then there must have been a time when it was half that size. And so on. Keep on "and so on-ing" and you get a rough estimate of how long the process has been going on.
Of course, someone might counter that the expansion need not have been going on at a constant rate. To this there is an obvious counter-objection: if the rate at which the universe is inflating was once much faster or slower than it is at present, then there would a massive dis-continuity visible everywhere in the universe, in all directions from any vantage point -- something like a sonic boom when an aircraft exceeds the speed of sound. Except that it would be photonic boom in this case. There would be an abrupt visible trace of that change in velocity, and it would be visible everywhere. As there is no such abrupt 'photonic boom', we may assume that the laws of physics have not undergone any radical change since as far back as we can measure.
Someone might further object that the Big bang might not have started from an infinitely small point, but from something larger, and that the current size of the universe could therefore have been attained in less time. To this there is an obvious counter-objection, too. Any other size is purely arbitrary, whether 10 light years across or 100 light years or 1000 or whatever, and there is no physical explanation which would justify 10 rather than 100 or 1000 or any other size. No evidence supports any such arbitrary horizon.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-the-big-bang-theory-background-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html
WHY inflation got started is not explained by physics, because physics never reveals evidence for WHY questions, only HOW questions.
As this is the Science Forum, not the Spirituality Forum, "WHY" questions, and therefore "Goddidit" answers, are out of bounds.
Originally posted by @moonbusan excellent post with excellent explanation for the layperson and I like it.
Background radiation and red shift exist today and can be measured; these are prima facie evidence for what is called the Big Bang, though a better term for it would be inflation, and enable fairly accurate estimates for how long inflation has been going on (not to the day, of course, but within an order of magnitude).
The basic reasoning is simple: the ...[text shortened]... ot the Spirituality Forum, "WHY" questions, and therefore "Goddidit" answers, are out of bounds.
I bet it will be wasted on some laypeople here who just don't want to learn anything new and have no genuine honest interested or natural curiosity in the truth.
Originally posted by @humyHmm, just WHOM could you be talking about?🙂
an excellent post with excellent explanation for the layperson and I like it.
I bet it will be wasted on some laypeople here who just don't want to learn anything new and have no genuine honest interested or natural curiosity in the truth.
Originally posted by @eladarIt would have helped if you actually announced your example as analogy it would have been a bit easier to understand. Not saying that up front would mean we would have to have been telepathic to suss that part out and last I heard telepathy is a fairy tale.
You have your head shoved so far up your your own butt it is impossible for you to understand.
Do you have emperical evidence that the world was not created by God as described? Of course not.
I never claimed to have emperical evidence either. I was explaining a concept which your point of view can't allow you to understand.
Originally posted by @moonbusSo what you are saying is that the diver must have been jumping from the ground because there was no high dive platform.
Background radiation and red shift exist today and can be measured; these are prima facie evidence for what is called the Big Bang, though a better term for it would be inflation, and enable fairly accurate estimates for how long inflation has been going on (not to the day, of course, but within an order of magnitude).
The basic reasoning is simple: the ...[text shortened]... ot the Spirituality Forum, "WHY" questions, and therefore "Goddidit" answers, are out of bounds.
In other words, God did not know how an expanding universe would appear at the time of creation and perfectly create such a universe. You have a pretty low view of an all knowing God.
Originally posted by @eladarMan are you thick.
I guess you don't get my example if you think science disproves the creation account.
My example demonstrates that people put their faith into science but can't see how it might be wrong. They can't see possible faulty assumptions.
I learned early on at rhp that you dont discuss your spiritual ideas unless they fit in with current scientific thinking. If a well founded scientific theory denies your theory then you lose. Full stop .
These other guys are just being too nice I think. I remember get drilled by the likes of sharkman and twitehead.
There is a chance in hell that those core scientific theories are faulty but until you come up with something better, my money is on science everytime.