It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Earth VS Old Earth and a Third point of view - the Creation Truth?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I respectfully disagree. That's the wonderful thing about the quantum world -- it doesn't follow Newtonian physics. To measure an atomic particle, physicists can measure it's value, or its location, but not both. There mere act of observing the particle changes both of its variables. It's wonderful.




posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: TzarChasm

I respectfully disagree. That's the wonderful thing about the quantum world -- it doesn't follow Newtonian physics. To measure an atomic particle, physicists can measure it's value, or its location, but not both. There mere act of observing the particle changes both of its variables. It's wonderful.


The act of measuring meaning direct interaction of one force with another force alters its properties. So we need better tools for measuring. Again, it's not magic.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm sorry if you don't see the magic of the quantum world. No matter, though, it won't measurably change anything within your world, but you might be on the cusp of sacrificing a precious thing --- ---- wonder. ;o)

The tenants of this thread -- creation/not creation truth rub dangerously against those ideals; there are faith-based ideals and those in which we adhere strictly to the scientific principals, which are measurable. Quantum measurements bridge a space between the two which are both measurable and......... almost philosophical.

Or, you can just believe that particles are little globules of matter with x mass and y density and z charge and cubbyhole them into quantities that can be regurgitated to students for their precious grades. That would be a sorrowful use of the data, though, wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm sorry if you don't see the magic of the quantum world. No matter, though, it won't measurably change anything within your world, but you might be on the cusp of sacrificing a precious thing --- ---- wonder. ;o)

The tenants of this thread -- creation/not creation truth rub dangerously against those ideals; there are faith-based ideals and those in which we adhere strictly to the scientific principals, which are measurable. Quantum measurements bridge a space between the two which are both measurable and......... almost philosophical.

Or, you can just believe that particles are little globules of matter with x mass and y density and z charge and cubbyhole them into quantities that can be regurgitated to students for their precious grades. That would be a sorrowful use of the data, though, wouldn't it?


A sorrowful use of data is hijacking science to reinforce a theocratic agenda.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree with that. Such a thing would be worse than sorrowful, it would be criminal.. I don't see where that has much to do with what I said. I like things measurable also. I love things that defy it. Wonder. BTW, I enjoyed the cadence of your statement. 3-2-2. Beat in the words. Wonderful prose pattern.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Remember the saying "You can't make this stuff up"? That's my take on the QM world. I'm still waiting for the sci fi writer who can capture some of the weirdness into a book, preferably a series.

In any case, you can always rely on the recent literature for a daily dose of weird-squared. This article appeared in QUANTA Magazine this week:

New Quantum Paradox Clarifies Where Our Views of Reality Go Wrong




That quantum mechanics is a successful theory is not in dispute. It makes astonishingly accurate predictions about the nature of the world at microscopic scales. What has been in dispute for nearly a century is just what it’s telling us about what exists, what is real. There are myriad interpretations that offer their own take on the question, each requiring us to buy into certain as-yet-unverified claims — hence assumptions — about the nature of reality.

Now, a new thought experiment is confronting these assumptions head-on and shaking the foundations of quantum physics. The experiment is decidedly strange. For example, it requires making measurements that can erase any memory of an event that was just observed. While this isn’t possible with humans, quantum computers could be used to carry out this weird experiment and potentially discriminate between the different interpretations of quantum physics.

“Every now and then you get a paper which gets everybody thinking and discussing, and this is one of those cases,” said Matthew Leifer, a quantum physicist at Chapman University in Orange, California. “[This] is a thought experiment which is going to be added to the canon of weird things we think about in quantum foundations.”


www.quantamagazine.org...

Original article in NATURE:

Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself
Daniela Frauchiger & Renato Renner




Abstract Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner.


www.nature.com...


When we start to question reality, are we also questioning our sanity? I'm not immune to saying that I can't wrap my head around many of the experiments. I'm still on the delayed choice/quantum eraser setups. I think there's something wrong with the eraser experiment - I just don't know what it is!!


edit on 8-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree with that. Such a thing would be worse than sorrowful, it would be criminal.. I don't see where that has much to do with what I said. I like things measurable also. I love things that defy it. Wonder. BTW, I enjoyed the cadence of your statement. 3-2-2. Beat in the words. Wonderful prose pattern.


Thanks, it's one of my hobbies. And I do respect wonder. But when science is used deceitfully I can't resist pointing it out. It's not about you, it's about certain users continuing to spread ignorance.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, and if a hobby, you appreciate the art of cadence. ==

I also abhor the misuse of science -- or even worse -- the manipulation of it.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Thanks, it's one of my hobbies. And I do respect wonder. But when science is used deceitfully I can't resist pointing it out. It's not about you, it's about certain users continuing to spread ignorance.


Many scientists believe in the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and it still remains the most popular conclusion of quantum physics data. You disagree with it to hold on to your material-reductionist nihilist religion. You deny all science that disproves your religion. This is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but to claim different opinions of the data are spreading ignorance is extremely chauvinistic.
edit on 8-12-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Thanks, it's one of my hobbies. And I do respect wonder. But when science is used deceitfully I can't resist pointing it out. It's not about you, it's about certain users continuing to spread ignorance.


Many scientists believe in the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and it still remains the most popular conclusion of quantum physics data. You disagree with it to hold on to your material-reductionist nihilist religion. You deny all science that disproves your religion. This is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but to claim different opinions of the data are spreading ignorance is extremely chauvinistic.


My opinion is your energy would be better spent on a creationist blog instead of a conspiracy forum.



posted on Dec, 9 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your "religion" is founded in fraud and deception. However, you're certainly not a master at it. To my knowledge, you haven't convinced a single person on this board except for those who you might be in league with behind the curtain. And that is why you never answer questions - it's because you can't.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Your "religion" is founded in fraud and deception.


The material-reductionist nihilist religion is the most illogical belief system to voice your opinion about. This is because, if nihilism is the correct philosophy, then there is no meaning to anything, and therefore no reason to even voice your opinion. You are wasting your breathe/effort by spreading the bad news of nihilism to others. If you actually believed what you thought you believed you would never voice an opinion again.

I'm sure you just looked up the copenhagen interpretation and realized that most quantum physicists are in agreement with the same conclusion I have about the data. Yet now you change the goalposts and voice your opinion elsewhere, a great sin against your meaningless nihilist religion. Go be a good adherent to your religion and enjoy your bottomless hedonist freedom and stop wasting your time voicing your theoretically meaningless opinion in a theoretically meaningless world.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

We have never said life is meaningless. But your meaning amounts to glorified slavery under a theocratic authority. Which is more nihilistic than any theory science has enabled us to assemble.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

That's a lot of fancy lingo just to say you don't agree!

My point was very clear: you don't answer questions and you don't respond to data which destroys your positions. It's sloppy and very obvious.

I may start a thread that records unanswered questions and/or posts which cite evidence directly contradicting statements made by "opposing forces".

Those of us - Peter Vlar, Barcs, Tzar, myself and others - make serious efforts to respond with credible citations and evidence which refute even the most ridiculous claims such as "There is not one piece of conclusive empirical evidence that demonstrates the very old earth. Organic remains in dinosaurs, historical depictions of dinosaurs, WWII planes beneath supposedly 1000s of years of ice accumulation, written history, biological interdependence, etc, all show that the timeline is not as old as we are led to believe" www.abovetopsecret.com...
My response: www.abovetopsecret.com... Gee, and I was sort of looking forward to having you upload Wolfram's Mathematica and Wolfram's free CFD player to dive right in!

But as per usual it's the silence of the lambs and the disappearing act. You call yourself a scientist. But your behavior tells a very different story....


edit on 10-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Actually, young earth biblical creationists argue that the Bible states that God lutterally took six days (break down original language to see literal 24h periods) to create the entire universe, and then simple math applied to geology detailing ages of men when they fatherd specific children and so on down the line you can calculate the age of the Earth.

Now consider this, which is what I personally believe: God creates the universe and earth, from our perspective 6400 years ago. This can be backed up a number of dating methods ranging from helium to ocean salinity, or just about anything other than proven incorrect carbon dating method. Now the fact is that there are objects measured to be 13.7bn light years away which we can see. Light travels 1 light year per year, obviously. How do we reconcile this? God placed Earth in a galaxy which is very similar to an accretion disk around a black hole, this black hole has been proven to exist and is called sagittarius a*. For those who have physics experience, or have seen the movie Interstellar, you will know that time slows down close to a black hole, and you may also know that this is due to gravitational pull which extends outward. Let's presume that God actually created the universe 13.8bn years ago, and Earth has only aged 6400 years in that time due to the time dilation effect of a black hole at the center of the galaxy.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Theocracy4America
a reply to: edmc^2

Actually, young earth biblical creationists argue that the Bible states that God lutterally took six days (break down original language to see literal 24h periods) to create the entire universe, and then simple math applied to geology detailing ages of men when they fatherd specific children and so on down the line you can calculate the age of the Earth.

Now consider this, which is what I personally believe: God creates the universe and earth, from our perspective 6400 years ago. This can be backed up a number of dating methods ranging from helium to ocean salinity, or just about anything other than proven incorrect carbon dating method. Now the fact is that there are objects measured to be 13.7bn light years away which we can see. Light travels 1 light year per year, obviously. How do we reconcile this? God placed Earth in a galaxy which is very similar to an accretion disk around a black hole, this black hole has been proven to exist and is called sagittarius a*. For those who have physics experience, or have seen the movie Interstellar, you will know that time slows down close to a black hole, and you may also know that this is due to gravitational pull which extends outward. Let's presume that God actually created the universe 13.8bn years ago, and Earth has only aged 6400 years in that time due to the time dilation effect of a black hole at the center of the galaxy.


Problem with this concept (6 literal days) is you have to come up with an explanation like yours to make it feasible while reality shows otherwise.

Here's a question for Young Earthers - if the earth is literally 6000+ years old, how old is the moon then?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

The moon is the same age, take a say of course.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Problem with this concept (6 literal days) is you have to come up with an explanation like yours to make it feasible while reality shows otherwise.



What evidence is there that the earth is very old?



Sedimentation occurs very rapidly, as demonstrated by polystrate fossils which are trees that persisted through multiple deposition events (poly- "many"; strate - "layers".

Seriously, there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that sedimentation takes lots of time:



It is a rapid process. Don't fall for the junk science, look for the empirical evidence.
edit on 14-12-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Also, this site has used info there too.




Do fossils require millions of years to form? Hardly! Even secular geologists now recognize that rocks form very quickly. The key is the right chemical conditions, not time. See for yourself with a simple experiment.


answersingenesis.org...



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Theocracy4America
a reply to: edmc^2

The moon is the same age, take a say of course.


Of course, unless we discount the moon rocks being dated around 4b too.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join