15 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayIts a matter of you just poo pooing any scientific argument because you think an ancient age defies the bible. Simple as that.
I have an agenda to keep the discussion honest.
It is no different than that candle question, you cannot tell how long a candle has
been burning just by looking at it since they can be started and stopped. You have
no IDEA what so ever about how and in what state the did everything come into
being! Since you don't know that, NO MATTER HOW you look at th ...[text shortened]... you can
glean from facts, because you have none that answer the basic questions above.
Kelly
We know for a fact that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation expands out from its source, if it is a spherical emitter, at a rate that we have proven a thousand times equals 1/r^2, that is at 1 foot from a radiator, it measures 1 watt, then at 2 feet it will measure 1/4th watt and at 3 feet will measure 1/9th of a watt.
There is a assumption that space here is about the same as space a billion light years away and using that assumption we see supernovae that all have about the same amount of power so when one supernova is 1/4th the power of another, we can say with a reasonable amount of assurance it is twice as far as the first one of X power, measured here on Earth.
So we see thousands of such novae and can make fairly good estimates of distances to stars and the distance directly relates to the age because we know light travels the same speed here as it does a billion light years away, so we are reasonably sure of the distance.
We even have gone so far as to figure out the universe expands at a greater rate now than it did several billion years ago.
17 Oct 12
1 edit
We've mapped the CMBR, the universe is billions of years old. Fact. This shouldn't be up for dispute. The dating of objects is only not accurate in the sense that it has margins of error that are within a few thousand years. Something like a fossil would still date back tens of thousands of years. Sometimes I think people honestly cant be seriously questioning these things. It shows a severe detachment from reality that can not only be destructive to the bearer of these beliefs but the environment and the human race as a whole. It carries a great deal of irresponsible thought that will no doubt be passed down from one generation to the next. Ignorantly sidestepping your own feelings and adhering religiously to the commands of another. There is no greater a betrayal to be found.
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by NOTGATESo you know how everything got here, in what state it was in when it did get here
We've mapped the CMBR, the universe is billions of years old. Fact. This shouldn't be up for dispute. The dating of objects is only not accurate in the sense that it has margins of error that are within a few thousand years. Something like a fossil would still date back tens of thousands of years. Sometimes I think people honestly cant be seriously questioni ...[text shortened]... d adhering religiously to the commands of another. There is no greater a betrayal to be found.
so that you can make these claims? I think you have a argument that has math,
and with that you can run your numbers and get what you think is true, it does not
matter that the basic assumptions you have about the beginning could be so
completely off it makes your correct math meaningless.
Kelly
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, it is a matter of correctly being able to look at something and know if that is
Its a matter of you just poo pooing any scientific argument because you think an ancient age defies the bible. Simple as that.
We know for a fact that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation expands out from its source, if it is a spherical emitter, at a rate that we have proven a thousand times equals 1/r^2, that is at 1 foot from a radiator, i ...[text shortened]... to figure out the universe expands at a greater rate now than it did several billion years ago.
a good thing to use as marker for time! Scipture has nothing to do with this, one
way or another. If the universe started in what we would call a totally functional
state much like we see it now, you looking at it saying it is older than it really is
would just be wrong and there would not be any data point within the universe
that you could use to know the age. If the unverse started and looked close to
what it does now, same thing would be true the data points you are looking at
simply would not tell you what you think. Not knowing how everything got here
leaves you guessing, making assumptions that you are basing everything on, and
since they are assumptions that cannot be "SHOWN WRONG" you feel content in
them. It does not mean they are correct, only that you (BELIEVE) they are.
Kelly
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayWell to be honest you cant really measure the states of anything before the beginning of the Universe now can you. There was no universe to measure things in. What your basically saying is that because we cant perceive what was before the big bang the universe could have just popped into existence, as is, full of life and all? Interesting. So your going for the simulation theory then. If not then a marker for time would be the radiation left over from the big bang, or the distance/ time it has and is increasingly taking for light to reach here from red shifted galaxies. Don't let these religious institutions warp the reality that has been worked so hard to uncover. Simply understand that science has no agenda other than truth. (Unless lobbied by energy companies to say there is no global warming that is.)
No, it is a matter of correctly being able to look at something and know if that is
a good thing to use as marker for time! Scipture has nothing to do with this, one
way or another. If the universe started in what we would call a totally functional
state much like we see it now, you looking at it saying it is older than it really is
would just be wrong ...[text shortened]... content in
them. It does not mean they are correct, only that you (BELIEVE) they are.
Kelly
17 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayThat gets into the realm of 'Occam's Razor'. If two hypotheses are being tested, the one that looks the most reasonable and assumes the smallest number of underlying assumptions, usually the simpler one is the correct hypothesis. In order for you to show the universe came about all at once in its present adult form you have to imagine a creator doing that for purposes unknown.
No, it is a matter of correctly being able to look at something and know if that is
a good thing to use as marker for time! Scipture has nothing to do with this, one
way or another. If the universe started in what we would call a totally functional
state much like we see it now, you looking at it saying it is older than it really is
would just be wrong ...[text shortened]... content in
them. It does not mean they are correct, only that you (BELIEVE) they are.
Kelly
It is much simpler to just go with what we can see, extrapolate from the data we know to be true, like the 1/r^2 rule of radiation (btw, we are not concerned with how old the candle is, but the relation between the power radiated by our standard candle and the 1/R^2 thing.)
The simplest thing to figure out here is what you see is what you get, not worrying about some god producing a fully adult universe with trillions of galaxies and so forth all popped up in place fully functional, with galaxies in various states of assembly and dis-assembly, we see all kinds of different galaxies and clusters of galaxies and to bring up the idea we should say we can never know how big the universe is and such because we were not there at the birth of the universe is just introducing paranoid fancies that can be dismissed out of hand.
For one thing, even if the universe was created fully formed, it would have been created with all the laws we now know to be true, also fully formed and thus a star at X distance away would be 4X stronger than one 2X further away, that wouldn't change AND all the stars we measure follow that rule. There has never been a galaxy or star within a galaxy that doesn't follow the inverse square law.
After millions of such measurements you can be as sure as a human can be the inverse square law really works and we can really depend on it, of course adding in relativistic effects which can effect the frequency of light coming off a fast, very fast, moving object.
You limit your own imagination with your paranoia about the universe having come into play fully grown when all the facts we have gathered about the universe all converge on a common age and distance, about 14 billion years old and about 40 billion light years across (some of the universe we cannot see because it was expanding faster than the speed of light and so there are galaxies out there we can never see even if we had a telescope mirror the size of the milky way, 100,000 light years across, even with a scope that big we could never EVER see past that 14 billion year old light barrier, the light couldn't get to us yet and won't for billions of years in the future, so now, all we can see is that 14 billion light year distance.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by sonhouseWe know all about a candle and how it works because we designed and made it. But, even there, we must obey the laws God made, when we make something from the materials God made. God knows how His creations work because He created them. We do not know everything about everything God made because we were not there when He make them to observe Him make them and have Him explain everything to us. Therefore, we can not know when and how He did it because we were not there. The only way we can know for sure is if God tells us. If we ignore what He tells us, then we can only make educated guesses at best.
That gets into the realm of 'Occam's Razor'. If two hypotheses are being tested, the one that looks the most reasonable and assumes the smallest number of underlying assumptions, usually the simpler one is the correct hypothesis. In order for you to show the universe came about all at once in its present adult form you have to imagine a creator doing that f ...[text shortened]... ns of years in the future, so now, all we can see is that 14 billion light year distance.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it is not 'WE' whiteman, it is "YOU" who poo poo everything thinking it must be only an educated guess. WE can tell perfectly well every object we look at follows the same laws here as out in the galaxy because of detailed study which goes way beyond your education. Of course you can't be expected to follow that logic, it is beyond your realm. Logic and your blinded view of the bible are two different things. Your stance goes beyond logic right into hallucination.
We know all about a candle and how it works because we designed and made it. But, even there, we must obey the laws God made, when we make something from the materials God made. God knows how His creations work because He created them. We do not know everything about everything God made because we were not there when He make them to observe Him make them ...[text shortened]... if God tells us. If we ignore what He tells us, then we can only make educated guesses at best.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's a good one, Spanky.
No, it is not 'WE' whiteman, it is "YOU" who poo poo everything thinking it must be only an educated guess. WE can tell perfectly well every object we look at follows the same laws here as out in the galaxy because of detailed study which goes way beyond your education. Of course you can't be expected to follow that logic, it is beyond your realm. Logic and ...[text shortened]... the bible are two different things. Your stance goes beyond logic right into hallucination.