KJ: "Light would not have to travel faster if light was created the same time the star was so that it could be seen on the planet. The laws don't have to change only the assumptions about what they prove about time."
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that the light from stars 6,000 l-y away from us was created at the same time as the light from stars 14 billion l-y away from us, and that they became visible on Earth either simultaneously or, at any rate, together within the last 6,000 years? Or something else?
KJ: "As I pointed out to you, the rates and distances you are going on about would be there no matter how it all began, which means if it is a young universe would they be good markers to use for age?"
Well, that is indeed the point: no matter how it all began. I maintain that there is very strong evidence that the universe is much older than 6,000 years, without knowing whether it had a beginning or is eternal, without knowing whether, if it had a beginning, that the beginning was an act of divine creation or entirely due to natural laws and mindless forces.
"If it is a young universe," you say -- when the evidence is nigh unto overwhelming that it isn't. In the words of Dickens (A Christmas Carol), "Why do you doubt your senses?!"
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is just like the argument for evolution: Don't talk to me until you know exactly how life started which is a totally different science discipline.
If you could give me your views on how everything got here we could talk, if not even your
views on the beginning are a version of thursdayism! You just push them out further
away than I do. Do you have an explanation on where everything came from?
The study of what the universe is, how big, how old, what's in it and all that, is a different science discipline of the origin of the universe.
Believe it or not, you can study all four of the above disciplines without bumping into each other.
We CAN say we know what is happening with light all the way out to 5 billion miles from Earth because we have probes sending us data, powered by a little nuclear power supply because there would be practically no energy to be had from solar power, but we know for an absolute fact exactly how long it takes for light to get here from 5 billion miles and it is no different from light coming from the moon, for instance.
So we feel we can extend that logic to the entire universe, we know how far away things are by the inverse square law.
The thing you didn't bother to address is the issue of what you think a deity could do to fool us. By us, I mean here in the 20th and 21st century.
That question would not have occurred to people 400 years ago because they didn't have much in the way of astronomy or specroscopic analysis which can tell you how fast stars are coming towards us or going away from us. Putting all that together gives us a pretty detailed account of where everything is, most things, anyway, in the universe.
Of course that does not address the 'how it got here' question, which, like I said, is totally different subject whether you can wrap your brain around that fact or not.
We don't have to know how life started to study how life changes once it arrives and we don't have to know exactly how the universe came about to figure out where stuff is, how fast stuff is going and all that.
It is YOU who have the problem not the world of science.
You ask questions, DEMAND answers to one subject before you will accept results in another and that is like scolding a 6 year old for not knowing differential calculus, which is where the science of origins is right now.
You do not have the right to call down people for that lack of knowledge since the entire study of the universe is only a few hundred years old and even your 6000 year date of Earth, that is not a very long time.
Come back in 200 years and see if you can destroy the argument by refusing to discuss any of those issues if we don't know origins.
I think we will have a much better handle on the origins question, both of the universe and the origins of life and you will not have a leg to stand on.
Meanwhile you are free to poo poo any of the above.
Except, about this fooling thing. Why would your god not fool people 4000 years ago but only fool us here in century 21?
For instance, if every photon in the universe were place just so that we would make the mistake of thinking the universe billions of years old when in fact your god made it only 6000 years ago, it could be made to look like that for someone with infinite powers and such but ONLY from our perspective.
Another civilization a million light years away looking at the same data would see a totally different picture of the universe because the angles of light would not match what WE would see.
So why would a god decide that humans are so special as to be deserving this huge deception?
Why would a god do that? Here, YOU are in the position of that 6 year old, you have no idea why but I say humans are not so special that a universe was created with just us in mind.
There simply HAS to be intelligent life elsewhere, even in your restricted universe. I assume you believe there are other galaxies, right? I would further assume you would know each of those galaxies contains literally billions of stars and a lot of them just like our sun.
So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suppose there could be life, intelligent life, out there on some planet going around some sun in some external galaxy or even in our own galaxy, which we know for an absolute fact there are over 100 billion stars right here in our home galaxy.
So do you think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
Originally posted by moonbusSomethings are difficult to understand or explain. We must accept the fact that we do not have the knowledge of the Creator and will not know or understand everything in the universe.
KJ: "Light would not have to travel faster if light was created the same time the star was so that it could be seen on the planet. The laws don't have to change only the assumptions about what they prove about time."
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that the light from stars 6,000 l-y away from us was created at the same time as the ligh ...[text shortened]... t it isn't. In the words of Dickens (A Christmas Carol), "Why do you doubt your senses?!"
At this time, God expects us just to accept that light was made before our Sun, moon, or even the stars. God plans to use this world to eliminate evil, sin, and death with great heat that will melt all the elements of this current heaven and earth and then create a new heaven and a new earth that is perfect for our new perfect bodies.
It is useless for you to use laws that were not in effect during the creation as benchmarks for determining anything in your imagination. God did not make laws to create, but to control His creation afterwards. The laws allow His creation to continue on without His constant input. It is we that are controlled by the laws, not God.
You doubt your senses when you see a magic trick, because you know there is something you must not see or know about. But you might not doubt your senses when you see an optical illusion that you believe is fact. The point is that we do not always know what to trust because of our lack of knowledge and experience in truth.
HalleluYaH !!!
Praise the LORD!
Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by sonhouseYou almost get it.
This is just like the argument for evolution: Don't talk to me until you know exactly how life started which is a totally different science discipline.
The study of what the universe is, how big, how old, what's in it and all that, is a different science discipline of the origin of the universe.
Believe it or not, you can study all four of the above ...[text shortened]... here in our home galaxy.
So do you think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
You say you don't want to put origins together with evilution because they are totally different sciences. I say evilution isn't even a science. It is a make believe fairy tale.
Another thing you don't get is that you can not know the age of the universe without knowing its origin. You seem to think you can do magical calculations to get the age of all things.
And you can't use an hourglass to determine the age if the earth, moon, sun, and stars.
The Near Genius
😏
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYOU can't know the age of the universe for sure but we can make some astute estimates based on science AND not knowing how the universe got here. The fantasies are in your head, not mine. It really is no use to talk to such an assshole as your self. Go back to your creationist buddies, have a good life, what's left of it.
You almost get it.
You say you don't want to put origins together with evilution because they are totally different sciences. I say evilution isn't even a science. It is a make believe fairy tale.
Another thing you don't get is that you can not know the age of the universe without knowing its origin. You seem to think you can do magical calculations ...[text shortened]... n hourglass to determine the age if the earth, moon, sun, and stars.
The Near Genius
😏
Also, that was me talking to KJ not you.
Originally posted by sonhouseThose estimates are way off in this case.
YOU can't know the age of the universe for sure but we can make some astute estimates based on science AND not knowing how the universe got here. The fantasies are in your head, not mine. It really is no use to talk to such an assshole as your self. Go back to your creationist buddies, have a good life, what's left of it.
Also, that was me talking to KJ not you.
Originally posted by moonbusA created mature universe capable of supporting life would have the stars and their light
KJ: "Light would not have to travel faster if light was created the same time the star was so that it could be seen on the planet. The laws don't have to change only the assumptions about what they prove about time."
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that the light from stars 6,000 l-y away from us was created at the same time as the ligh ...[text shortened]... t it isn't. In the words of Dickens (A Christmas Carol), "Why do you doubt your senses?!"
in place at time of creation, especially when the point of them was so that they could be
seen as soon as they were made.
I don't doubt my senses, I just don't take it on face value that the universe's beginning has
had an adequate explanation from the scientific community. I've asked over and over here
how it began and all I've gotten are just a rehashing on why we date things the way we do
which does not address the only point in this discussion that really touches the age of the
universe. If we do not know how or why it began than picking anything to look at and use
as a measuring tool cannot be seen as meaningful. It is only meaningful if you know or
have some knowledge how it all began, and no one does.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou assume knowledge you do not have. You gather rates and distances and project
This is just like the argument for evolution: Don't talk to me until you know exactly how life started which is a totally different science discipline.
The study of what the universe is, how big, how old, what's in it and all that, is a different science discipline of the origin of the universe.
Believe it or not, you can study all four of the above ...[text shortened]... here in our home galaxy.
So do you think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
times when the argument is the beginning. I'm quite aware that that how it got here is
different than age, but you will never know the age without the how it got here. All of the
numbers can be perfect, the calculations flawless, and yet if the universe was created
none of the formulas would hold the answers to the questions being presented.
God does not have to set out to fool anyone, since He didn't tell you to do what your doing
you've done all of this on your own. I've freely admitted I don't know the age, and I have
faith on the beginning. You on the other had believe you have facts to back up your views
on the age, and still don't have a clue how or why it is all here.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell then we have to agree to disagree on that point. I still say that 'how it began' and 'how old is it?' are two separate issues. No one in the scientific community that I know of is prepared to commit himself to a 'theory of everything' which explains how the universe began. But we still have very good evidence that it is much older than 6,000 years.
A created mature universe capable of supporting life would have the stars and their light
in place at time of creation, especially when the point of them was so that they could be
seen as soon as they were made.
I don't doubt my senses, I just don't take it on face value that the universe's beginning has
had an adequate explanation from the scientific ...[text shortened]... ul. It is only meaningful if you know or
have some knowledge how it all began, and no one does.
Hinds is making the same confusion about evolution, BTW. Evolution theory does not propose to explain how life got started in the first place (which is Hinds' main objection to it); Darwin himself later said that his choice of title was infelicitous ("On the Origin of Species" ). Evolution theory proposes to explain speciation not how life began -- that is, the mechanism of species diversification given that life is here already.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou got one thing right there: one or the other of us believes in magic.
...At this time, God expects us just to accept that light was made before our Sun, moon, or even the stars. God plans to use this world to eliminate evil, sin, and death with great heat that will melt all the elements of this current heaven and earth and then create a new heaven and a new earth that is perfect for our new perfect bodies...
Originally posted by moonbusThey are two different issues, but to understand the one you require the other. If the
Well then we have to agree to disagree on that point. I still say that 'how it began' and 'how old is it?' are two separate issues. No one in the scientific community that I know of is prepared to commit himself to a 'theory of everything' which explains how the universe began. But we still have very good evidence that it is much older than 6,000 years.
H ...[text shortened]... /i] -- that is, the mechanism of species diversification given that life is here already.
universe were created fully formed, would anyone in the scientific community be able to
test for that?
There isn't even a good theory on how it all got here, at best what is presented are one
of two things, everything is eternal and people have to come up ways to jump through all
the hoops that gives us, or they attempt to talk about how something went from one state
unto another which does not address how everything got here. It is as elusive as can man
force God out into the open, but instead of not being able to find God who hides, we have
everything in front of us and we cannot tell where it came from.
Evolution has issues too, and I agree the beginning of that process has as many problems
as you can count. Yes the process itself I actually believe in, just not all of it, I don't buy
into the common ancestor portion of the theory.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, they would. This topic has been discussed over and over and you just stubbornly keep repeating the same mantra and ignoring any argument that contradicts your mantra or as in my case refuse to speak ever again to anyone who shows the contradiction in your argument.
They are two different issues, but to understand the one you require the other. If the
universe were created fully formed, would anyone in the scientific community be able to
test for that?
Your 'fully formed' requires the existence of a fake history of the universe including fake stars that never existed. From a scientific standpoint if the universe was created last Thursday but is indistinguishable from one that is a billion years old then we say it is a billion years old.
Originally posted by KellyJayScience collects evidence. Does this evidence always lead to the truth? No. However, if one then comes along and says that they don't believe the evidence, the person in question presumably has additional evidence to prove their point.
You assume knowledge you do not have. You gather rates and distances and project
times when the argument is the beginning. I'm quite aware that that how it got here is
different than age, but you will never know the age without the how it got here. All of the
numbers can be perfect, the calculations flawless, and yet if the universe was created
none of ...[text shortened]... facts to back up your views
on the age, and still don't have a clue how or why it is all here.
Science can't even explain what the bulk of the universe Is made of, which they call "dark matter". All they have are crude measures to try and study what little they can observe with their five senses and army of machines. I'm not sure, though, what good it does to belittle what little observations they have of the universe.