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?
“Death began at the Fall, not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”- http://creation.com/maintaining-creation...ent-hovind
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...modynamics
and on and on and on…