movement to atheism

@dj2becker said
So when dating methods are used for evolutionary timelines they are reliable but when they are used to date the age of the universe they aren’t reliable? How convenient.

Do you seriously think the dating methods for the age of the
universe and evolutionary timelines are in any way connected?

@dj2becker said
Order tends to emerge from chaos by means of intelligent intervention.

Grow up and educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Ever seen a snow-flake?
Ever seen crystals grow?
Ever seen a murmuration of starlings at dusk?
Ever seen the double-slit experiment?

@wolfgang59 said
Do you seriously think the dating methods for the age of the
universe and evolutionary timelines are in any way connected?

I think he does. (And frequently conflates the two).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You believe in an infinite God, while I am putting forward the idea of an infinite universe. Neither of us are alone in that belief and neither of us can explain such infinity, due largely to our finite nature. So, in short, you asking me to explain how an eternal universe got there is akin to me asking you how your eternal God came to be. How could either of us possi ...[text shortened]... that matter has always existed in one form or another and at no stage has there ever been 'nothing'.

I can’t prove or test anything about God, only He can reveal Himself. While we do for the universe it can measured, tested, and looked at. I wonder what you look at or measure to give you the idea that the universe can be eternal? If it’s nothing you see why?

@kellyjay said
I can’t prove or test anything about God, only He can reveal Himself. While we do for the universe it can measured, tested, and looked at. I wonder what you look at or measure to give you the idea that the universe can be eternal? If it’s nothing you see why?

Put simply:

'Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end - the universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures. In the freeze frame the universe emerges from an almost static state with flat geometry. After entropy production it shrinks and "thaws" slowly from a "freeze state" with extremely low temperature. The field transformation to the second "big bang picture" (Einstein frame) is singular. This "field singularity" is responsible for an apparent singularity of the big bang. Furthermore, we argue that past-incomplete geodesics do not necessarily indicate a singularity or beginning of the universe. Proper time ceases to be a useful concept for physical time if particles become massless. We propose to define physical time by counting the number of zeros of a component of the wave function. This counting is independent of the choice of coordinates and frames, and applies to massive and massless particles alike.'

C. Wetterich

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Put simply:

'Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end - the universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures. In the freeze frame the universe emerges from an almost static state with flat geomet ...[text shortened]... ice of coordinates and frames, and applies to massive and massless particles alike.'

C. Wetterich

You have observed something to bring you to this, or is it something else,
massless particles and where proper time ceases? Even in this statement it isn't
something pronounced as true, it is just some argument that my not necessarily
indicate a beginning. What exactly is this based on, the desire that is it true or
some thing else?

@wolfgang59 said
Do you seriously think the dating methods for the age of the
universe and evolutionary timelines are in any way connected?

They are both dating methods that supposedly utilize the scientific method, genius.

@dj2becker said
They are both dating methods that supposedly utilize the scientific method, genius.

They are as related to each other as your posts are too a Pulitzer Prize.

@kellyjay said
You have observed something to bring you to this, or is it something else,
massless particles and where proper time ceases? Even in this statement it isn't
something pronounced as true, it is just some argument that my not necessarily
indicate a beginning. What exactly is this based on, the desire that is it true or
some thing else?

Is your belief in a deity 'based on the desire' that it is true?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Put simply:

'Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end - the universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures. In the freeze frame the universe emerges from an almost static state with flat geomet ...[text shortened]... ice of coordinates and frames, and applies to massive and massless particles alike.'

C. Wetterich

Whenever it's not reproducible in the lab you may as well call it wishful thinking.

@dj2becker said
Whenever it's not reproducible in the lab you may as well call it wishful thinking.

Great.

Please reproduce your God in a lab. (Or stop talking nonsense).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Great.

Please reproduce your God in a lab. (Or stop talking nonsense).

In terms of what you would like to call science, genius.

@dj2becker said
In terms of what you would like to call science, genius.

So something that may take billions of years to form is required by you to be recreated in a lab, perhaps on a Tuesday afternoon?


Doughnut.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So something that may take billions of years to form is required by you to be recreated in a lab, perhaps on a Tuesday afternoon?


Doughnut.

‘May take billions of years’ is pure speculation or as some would say ‘wishful thinking’.

@dj2becker said
Whenever it's not reproducible in the lab you may as well call it wishful thinking.

Luckily for you scientists are not so small-minded.