Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 8, 2014 at 5:51 am
By the way, old warped one if the speed of light was instantaneous, you would not be able to see it because it would have no wavelength, and no frequency, and so there would be no evidence that it even existed.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 8, 2014 at 5:45 pm (This post was last modified: February 8, 2014 at 5:47 pm by Chas.)
(February 6, 2014 at 9:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(February 6, 2014 at 9:02 pm)whateverist Wrote: Waldorf say it ain't so. Surely you're not genuinely a young earther. I have to believe you just like yanking chains and adding finesse to positions which are really beneath you.
Wait. I've got it. You play a Christian on AF.org but really you are a devil's advocate.
If I believed the Bible was the word of God as Christians do, why would I not be?
Additionally, do you respect Old-Earth Christians more or less than Young-Earth Christians and why?
Old Earth creationists are somewhat less ignorant than YECs, although their dissonance may be greater.
Your misinterpretations of relativity are absurd.
You completely misunderstand that it is the speed of light that is a constant, the same for all frames of reference, all observers.
Quote:In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. It is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm
the yec have to go through all sorts of machinations to fit science with their total dedication to an always literal interpretation of scripture. for instance, they believe that the 2'nd law of themo. (entropy) took effect after adam's fall. however, scripture makes it clear that the laws of physics have been unchanged since the U's beginning (God thru his prophet jeremiah say the laws governing the heavens and earth are "fixed" from the beginning). biblical passages affirms that starlight, adam's human work, and food metabloism was in effect before adam's sin; none of which would be possible without heat transfer.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm
(February 7, 2014 at 1:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why would an atheist not respect old earthers more than young earthers? The former has at least made an attempt to do something that, generally speaking, agnostic atheism is in favor of; modulating their beliefs to fit the available evidence. The fact that they've done so imperfectly doesn't detract from their effort.
But they have not done so at all and that’s my point.
OEC: The Bible is infallible, current science is fallible
OEC: Even though the Bible says the Earth is young, I believe it’s old because current science tells us it is.
OEC: Even though current science tells us virgins do not give birth I believe one did because the Bible says one did.
OEC: Even though current science tells us that people do not resurrect from the dead I believe people have because the Bible says they have.
You really respect such inconsistencies and arbitrariness over the internal consistency of the YEC position? I’ll always respect logical consistency over inconsistency and arbitrariness.
Quote: Granted, one might see it as inconsistent, but that really depends on where you're coming from; if you have a position you've taken to be the ideal one, and any deviation from that represents a contradiction or weakness of belief, then yeah, it's inconsistent. If your only wish is to best align your beliefs with the facts, regardless of what they are, then it's just forward progress.
The science of origins does not deal with the facts, that’s the entire problem. Facts do not change, science does. Someone with the OEC mindset living in the 1920s would assert that “In the beginning…” was purely allegorical because according to Steady State Theory (the consensus in the 1920s) the Universe had no beginning. Now let’s say that person lived to the 1970s, now what are they going to say? “In the beginning…” was no longer allegorical because the Big Bang Theory tells us the Universe indeed did have a beginning? You cannot base your interpretation of scripture on something that is fallible and therefore always changing. Contrast that with a YEC who in the 1920s believed the Universe had a beginning and still did in the 1970s and you’ve got a much more consistent position.
(February 7, 2014 at 11:44 am)whateverist Wrote: If you believe the bible is the word of god then you simply have a low threshold for belief. Certainly your perogative though. We all make do with less than certainty everyday.
“Old Earth Creationists” believe it’s the word of God as well.
Quote: I respect old-earth Christian's ability to judge the evidence more than I do the YEC's.
Really? What evidence is there that a virgin can give birth? A man can resurrect after being dead for three days? Someone can turn water into wine? Someone can cure blindness by rubbing mud on their eyes? Old Earth Christians believe all of these things happened, do you still believe they value “evidence”?
(February 7, 2014 at 11:48 am)Chas Wrote: You are making inferences that are not supported by relativity. You really do misunderstand it.
That’s easy enough to assert but can you actually demonstrate how it disagrees with my position?
(February 7, 2014 at 12:11 pm)StuW Wrote: I wonder how he gets around the mass->speed and speed -> ruler problems of infinite speed considering lorentz doesn't negate them
This system can be formulated in a manner that is completely consistent with the Lorenz transformations.
(February 7, 2014 at 2:10 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Wrong. It is measuring the speed of light independently of distance traveled by measuring it's wavelength and multiplying the result by its frequency. If it was a two-way measurement and one-way was different from the other, you would have two different wavelengths. The fact that we only see one wavelength demonstrates not only the isotropic nature of light, but that the speed of light that is conventionally use in ALL OF PHYSICS is correct. And that means that no matter how you try to twist the laws of physics, you will never get a 10,000 year old universe out of one that is 13.7 billion years old.
I do not have to do any twisting because you just do not understand what you’re talking about. Under this system light moving tangentially to the observer moves at c (cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.); so the experiment proves nothing because you’d get those exact same results under either system. Additionally, the experiment is using information derived from two-way speed experiments and is therefore begging the question in regards to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.
Keep trying! Maybe you’ll prove relativity wrong one of these days!
(February 7, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: There is really no fundamental difference between creationism and the idea that our brains were built five minutes ago with memories that deceive us into thinking we have past experiences. Actually, creationism is a lot more retarded.
Nice job contradicting yourself in only two sentences. “There’s no difference but there is a difference.”
(February 7, 2014 at 4:28 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: If only you had some observational calculations to back up that extreme minority viewpoint
Whether something is a minority viewpoint or not is irrelevant. It’s impossible to experimentally measure the one-way speed of light; that’s a core principle of relativity.
Quote: Everyone has biases, in the same way that you will always flat-out reject all evidence based approaches to everything because you have a pre-determined, biblical based outlook regarding the planet and the universe.
Yes, and you have an anti-Biblical one, so your point is what?
Quote: Nobel prize judges would simply want to see some studies and/or calculations, neither of which I expect you'll ever actually generate.
Calculations for what?
Quote:Like when you generated 'deductive proof' of god that was acknowledged by absolutely nobody ever.
Deduction is independent of others’ opinion and others’ approval, you should know that.
Quote: Seriously, if you write a critical thinking textbook I will buy it and add it to my collection, none of the existing textbooks contain the deductively sound case for god so there's a juicy gap in the market. Right-wing American christian cranks are adept at marrying venture capitalism with religious dogma, go for it mate, do it for the children.
You really think no book has ever been written concerning the proof for God’s existence? Seriously? Where do you think I got my ideas from?
Quote:Sweet as, results please. We'll just need to get it peer reviewed and then we can go get you that nobel prize, yuk yuk.
You reject all science that has not been peer-reviewed?
(February 8, 2014 at 5:51 am)orogenicman Wrote: By the way, old warped one if the speed of light was instantaneous, you would not be able to see it because it would have no wavelength, and no frequency, and so there would be no evidence that it even existed.
You’re begging the question yet again, how do you know light requires a wavelength and frequency in order to be seen?
(February 8, 2014 at 5:45 pm)Chas Wrote: Old Earth creationists are somewhat less ignorant than YECs, although their dissonance may be greater.
How are they less ignorant? Being more inconsistent does not make a person less ignorant, in fact it makes them more epistemologically ignorant.
Quote: Your misinterpretations of relativity are absurd.
You completely misunderstand that it is the speed of light that is a constant, the same for all frames of reference, all observers.
No, according to the conventionality thesis it’s a constant only because Einstein stipulated it was. This is a stipulation made by Einstein and he was clear that it was not something inherently true about reality and the nature of light itself. Learn the material before you comment on it please.
Quote:In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. It is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
You should look up the meaning of the word postulate, it obviously does not mean what you think it means.
(February 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the yec have to go through all sorts of machinations to fit science with their total dedication to an always literal interpretation of scripture. for instance, they believe that the 2'nd law of themo. (entropy) took effect after adam's fall. however, scripture makes it clear that the laws of physics have been unchanged since the U's beginning (God thru his prophet jeremiah say the laws governing the heavens and earth are "fixed" from the beginning). biblical passages affirms that starlight, adam's human work, and food metabloism was in effect before adam's sin; none of which would be possible without heat transfer.
Let me get this straight….creationists believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at “the fall” by writing articles urging creationists not to believe that? Seriously?
“Question 3: Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall?
Answer 3:
No, I would not say that entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. The Second Law is responsible for a number of good things which involve increases in entropy, so are ‘decay’ processes in the thermodynamic sense but maybe not what most people would imagine are decay:
•solar heating of the earth (heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classical case of the Second Law in action),
•walking (requires the highly entropic phenomenon of friction, otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden!),
•breathing (based on air moving from high pressure to low pressure, producing a more disordered equalized concentration of molecules),
•digestion (breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks),
•baking a cake (mixing the ingredients produces a lot of disorder), etc.”
“The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.” This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay.”
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 14, 2014 at 10:28 pm
(February 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the yec have to go through all sorts of machinations to fit science with their total dedication to an always literal interpretation of scripture.
Statler has a point, though. Why would a Christian reject a young earth in favor of scientific evidence that claims differently, yet accept Biblical claims that science either cannot confirm or considers impossible?
Welcome back, Stat. Glad to hear that the surgery went well.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 14, 2014 at 10:33 pm
I actually find it odd, but I agree with Waldorf. OEC is not substantially less ridiculous than YEC and it requires making up a lot more shit to make all the made-up shit make any sense. YECs stick rigidly to their bullshit and are much more consistent in their denial of reality.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 15, 2014 at 12:19 am
Among lots of other drivel,(tl;dr)
(February 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Really? What evidence is there that a virgin can give birth?
Happens all the time. Technology has moved past the bronze age.
per google's dictionary
vir·gin
ˈvərjən/
noun
noun: virgin; plural noun: virgins
1.
a person, typically a woman, who has never had sexual intercourse.
Also from google's dictionary
ar·ti·fi·cial in·sem·i·na·tion
noun
1.
the injection of semen into the vagina or uterus other than by sexual intercourse.
Most of the milk supplied in American markets comes from virgin cows who have calved and freshened without intercourse.
Virgin birth isn't so hard to replicate these days. I am interested in the semantic gymnastics you have to offer to explain how this simple and obvious fact is somehow in error. I don't expect it to change your arbitrary, axiomatic presuppositions.
Maybe no woman has ever been artificially inseminated without having somehow first been fucked?
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 15, 2014 at 11:23 am
warped one Wrote:I do not have to do any twisting because you just do not understand what you’re talking about. Under this system light moving tangentially to the observer moves at c (cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.); so the experiment proves nothing because you’d get those exact same results under either system. Additionally, the experiment is using information derived from two-way speed experiments and is therefore begging the question in regards to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.
warped one Wrote:You’re begging the question yet again, how do you know light requires a wavelength and frequency in order to be seen?
You no doubt made those responses with a straight face. (grins)
You should take a closer look at your math.
I (a board member of one of the oldest astronomical societies in the U.S.) don't know what I'm talking about with respect to light? (grins again).
If light had no wavelength or frequency, there would be no electromagnetic spectrum, indeed there would be no universe. If light had no wavelength or frequency, most atomic phenomenae would not occur, and we would not even exist. Visually, light has to be at a specific range of frequencies and wavelengths in order to be seen by human eyes. You didn't know this? Huh.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 15, 2014 at 11:32 am
Quote:Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 380 nm and 760 nm (400–790 terahertz) is detected by the human eye and perceived as visible light. Other wavelengths, especially near infrared (longer than 760 nm) and ultraviolet (shorter than 380 nm) are also sometimes referred to as light, especially when the visibility to humans is not relevant. White light is a combination of lights of different wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Passing white light through a prism splits it up into the several colors of light observed in the visible spectrum between 400 nm and 780 nm.
If radiation having a frequency in the visible region of the EM spectrum reflects off an object, say, a bowl of fruit, and then strikes our eyes, this results in our visual perception of the scene. Our brain's visual system processes the multitude of reflected frequencies into different shades and hues, and through this insufficiently-understood psychophysical phenomenon, most people perceive a bowl of fruit. At most wavelengths, however, the information carried by electromagnetic radiation is not directly detected by human senses
For light to be perceived it must have very precise and well understood properties which would make this instantaneous movement thing so laughably stupid it if it wasn't so sad.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
