06 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain you put things in religious terms, "You sound more like a priest". So you say those sciences that make statements based on evidence the Earth is more than 6000 years old is wrong no matter what the methodology. I am saying the evidence follows logical sequences and consequences of many scientific disciplines.
There is nothing religious about not knowing how it all got here, besides you force more
than a few discussions on religion as you tell everyone how God would act if God were
real. So I'd take another approach to this discussion, you are just as bad as I am.
The best evidence according to those that agree with you isn't in my opinion the best
evidence ...[text shortened]... like a priest more than someone who claims to believe in a self correcting method
of discovery.
If ten totally separate science measurements all come to the conclusion Earth is billions of years old and the only difference between them is one saying the Earth is 4.56 billion years old and another says Earth is 4.54 billion years old, there is a common thread in that work.
If they all agree within some broad window, say within 10%, it is safe to conclude the answers are on the right order of magnitude.
As to how it all got here, we may never know. There are hypotheses about that, such as the multiverse idea where a black hole in this universe becomes a new universe in another dimension, a white hole there, which could be what our Big Bang was, a white hole that was a black hole in a parent universe and ours is a daughter universe and our universe spawning its own daughter universe and so forth, perhaps an infinite number of such universes.
And of course it is speculation at this time but who knows what will be discovered in another hundred or five hundred years of continued advancement in science.
You chastise science for not knowing the answers to the biggest question, forgetting the entire life span of modern science is barely 300 years old now.
You should think long and hard about that fact, we are still in kindergarten in science.
So you are like spanking a first grade child for not knowing calculus. You are making an unfair judgement based on a brand new discipline, the modern science movement. 400 years ago the church ruled the planet and you could get put to death if you even suggested the Earth orbits the son. Back then, the Earth was considered the center of the entire universe.
I think you have to admit we have learned a lot since those dark days.
Well, we will learn a lot more in the next 400 years I can assure you.
Maybe answers to all the big questions, how life got here, how the universe got here, are there other universes, is there life on planets other than Earth, how much time does Earth have now that we know our sun will run out of fuel in the distant future.
I get particularly annoyed at people who INSIST on putting the origin of life question on earth in with evolution, which are and always will be two separate scientific disciplines.
RJ and perhaps you also, insist they are part and parcel of the same thing.
But evolution doesn't give a rats ass how life got here, it ONLY studies how life changes once it is already here.
Then there is the separate science discipline of the origin of life on Earth, a totally separate science.
But the right wing religious crowd insists on connecting the two.
Evolutionists could care less how life came about on Earth, an alien dumping their left over lunch, a god going bippity bippity bop, let there be life, a comet depositing prebiotic complex chemicals that got more and more complex interacting with Earth's environment of rain, UV from the son and so forth, ending up with living cells,
THEY DON"T CARE. Pick one and run with it, Evolution scientists could care less.
ALL they care about is what happened next.
06 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's no philosophical problem with skepticism that I can bring to mind (although it's easy enough to find people who'll say there is), I have a dual approach to epistemology. One the one hand I'm an epistemological solipsist - all I can know are my internal mental states. However, that's a little impractical, so I relax my standards of justification to those of normal empiricism to make knowledge statements about the rest of the world. So as an epistemological solipsist (this is different from an ontological solipsist who actually thinks they are the only consciousness that exists) I agree with your statements about knowledge - we can't know very much. However, for everyday purposes I take it on trust that the world is pretty much as it appears and that my senses aren't deceiving me on a grand scale.
I'm skeptical, and I shouldn't be?
The evidence does not address that question I've asked does it? How did everything
come into being? Without that question answered does it really matter if it expanded
then shrank? The only thing you are really talking about is a basic model of what you
think its current functions are doing which does not address its ...[text shortened]... everything? That is what you think didn't happen
or did however you want to rephrase that!? 🙂
The evidence is relevant to my belief formation, and since you asked me what my theory of creation is I mentioned it. The subsequent evolution of the universe is significant in ruling out some theories of creation. So theories of continuous creation fail to account for the CMB, so they are ruled out. Big bang and eternal inflation theories do, so they are candidate theories.
I find theories where time stretches back without limit unimaginable, so I tend to prefer ones with beginning of some sort. Time stretching infinitely into the future isn't a problem because for any point in time in the future the time since creation is finite.
The laws of physics apply to this universe, we have no epistemological basis for claiming they obtain outside the universe. Physical law is restrictive, it says what can't happen, rather than what can. If I throw a stone it goes in a parabola, it does not do a series of aerobatic manoeuvres and then turn into a pot plant. My idea is that the laws of physics came into being when the universe did. Without physical law anything can happen. So without the universe there are no laws of physics and anything can happen. The universe came into being because there was no particular reason it shouldn't. There is no why, the universe just is. This can be regarded as a minority view amongst physicists, in fact I don't know of anyone else who thinks this.
06 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't believe the measurements are wrong. What I'm saying is, time does not pass at the same rate everywhere in the universe, including the earth. The clock on ancient earth is not even the same as the modern day clock due to differences in speed.
I agree that suggests one of two different possibilities the first being time is not a constant,
or all of our abilities, tools, means of measuring it are not as good as we think they are.
06 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyYou could be right, or wrong either way it doesn't change anything with respect to how the
I don't believe the measurements are wrong. What I'm saying is, time does not pass at the same rate everywhere in the universe, including the earth. The clock on ancient earth is not even the same as the modern day clock due to differences in speed.
universe got here.
07 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayMy main problem I have with Young Earth Creationists is, many have drawn a line in the sand and said you must agree with us, or you are heretics and not saved.
You could be right, or wrong either way it doesn't change anything with respect to how the
universe got here.
It reminds me of the Inquisition when the church demanded that the universe revolved around the Earth and demanded that the Bible indicated this based upon their interpretation. Now I don't think you or RJ would agree that the universe revolves around the earth, or at least I hope not, but you do insist that the earth is only thousands of years old which is similar in terms of defying scientific evidence to the contrary.
But you are correct, what we think about the matter does not really matter, unless you are trying to convert someone to Christ who is scientifically savy. Then they will look at you like you don't know what you are talking about if you insist that the earth is only thousands of years old. A far better answer would be, "I don't know".
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyExcuse me! When have you seen me say that or for that matter I don't recall anyone else
My main problem I have with Young Earth Creationists is, many have drawn a line in the sand and said you must agree with us, or you are heretics and not saved.
It reminds me of the Inquisition when the church demanded that the universe revolved around the Earth and demanded that the Bible indicated this based upon their interpretation. Now I don't think y ...[text shortened]... st that the earth is only thousands of years old. A far better answer would be, "I don't know".
saying that.
I've been insulted for holding that view, but never have I said it was a requirement for
salvation. I find you being very insulting here.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyHow do you think the universe got here?
My main problem I have with Young Earth Creationists is, many have drawn a line in the sand and said you must agree with us, or you are heretics and not saved.
It reminds me of the Inquisition when the church demanded that the universe revolved around the Earth and demanded that the Bible indicated this based upon their interpretation. Now I don't think y ...[text shortened]... st that the earth is only thousands of years old. A far better answer would be, "I don't know".
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayDid I say you? I said many Young Creationists. Does that mean you per say?
Excuse me! When have you seen me say that or for that matter I don't recall anyone else
saying that.
I've been insulted for holding that view, but never have I said it was a requirement for
salvation. I find you being very insulting here.
Although you may not say it is a prerequisite for being saved, just saying it to a science savy individual will hurt your credibility in spreading the gospel. That's why I think many scientists are not religious They don't feel it is based in reality.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYour problem is that you hang on to bogus so-called science regardless of what the Holy Bible reveals to us. In the case of the creation, you are wrong to use distance as a measure of time. It does not work. 😏
You're position with regard to knowledge is pretty skeptical.
The empirical evidence points towards the Universe starting to expand around 13 billion years ago. There are a number of physics based theories. There's creation ex nihilo followed by cosmological inflation and then the expansion we see now, commonly called the Big Bang Theory. Al ...[text shortened]... nk the universe came into being without cause, there was just no particular reason it shouldn't.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyYou are talking to a young earth creationist and spout such things, yea I'm left wondering.
Did I say you? I said many Young Creationists. Does that mean you per say?
Although you may not say it is a prerequisite for being saved, just saying it to a science savy individual will hurt your credibility in spreading the gospel. That's why I think many scientists are not religious They don't feel it is based in reality.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhat you mean by someone who is "scientifically savy" is that they have accepted everything printed in textbooks about science, including even the propaganda of the billions of years as being true.
My main problem I have with Young Earth Creationists is, many have drawn a line in the sand and said you must agree with us, or you are heretics and not saved.
It reminds me of the Inquisition when the church demanded that the universe revolved around the Earth and demanded that the Bible indicated this based upon their interpretation. Now I don't think y ...[text shortened]... st that the earth is only thousands of years old. A far better answer would be, "I don't know".
It is not my intention to convert someone like that who can't think for themselves. I am only interested in telling those that wish to know the truth what is revealed in the Holy Bible on the subject. They are free to believe or not to believe.
I am sure that they also do not believe in a worldwide flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the turning of water to wine, the raising of the dead, or any of the other miracles performed by Jesus that is recorded in the Holy Bible.
Why then should I care that they don't believe about the age of the Universe or the Earth? I don't see why I must ignore that truth just because of their so-called scientific savy. 😏
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsWe know good and well the speed of light. We know good and well time is relative depending on how far you are in a gravity well, the deeper the well, the slower time flows. We also know good and well if you go fast, time also slows down for those inside the spacecraft or whatever.
What you mean by someone who is "scientifically savy" is that they have accepted everything printed in textbooks about science, including even the propaganda of the billions of years as being true.
It is not my intention to convert someone like that who can't think for themselves. I am only interested in telling those that wish to know the truth what is ...[text shortened]... h? I don't see why I must ignore that truth just because of their so-called scientific savy. 😏
These are facts beyond refute. You cannot change that, good luck trying.
We also know the time of flight of a light beam as measured directly out to a distance of 5 billion miles, remember Voyager? 1 and 2? The signals are coming in at exactly the rate we also measured for close in stuff, like the reflector left on the moon by Apollo.
So we send out a flash of light to the moon and a few photons get back to Earth and we know the speed of light doesn't vary one whit there and we directly measure how far the moon is receding each year because we know the speed of light VERY accurately.
I guess all that means nothing to you, but it also is possible to measure the time of flight of light to stars and they follow the same rules we worked out for the speed of light here on Earth, especially now that we know for a FACT the speed of light doesn't change a whit out to an already measured 5 billion miles from Earth.
So we feel safe extrapolating that to the speed of light in the whole universe and every measurement made has not found c to change velocities by as much as one inch per second. It is an absolute, the speed of light.
The fact you choose not to have that in your own mind is just your own agenda where you want to destroy any science that disagrees with your precious bible and the timeline inferred therein where their is not a word about how old the universe or Earth is, never mentioned, but just inferred from the charlie begat roger series.
I'll put my trust in solid evidence which, in fact, can change what we think about as far as the big questions go, whereas your bible nonsense cannot change EVER no matter what evidence science turns up.
I have said it many times, you are a one trick pony and will never get out of that pitiful situation.